h  b  nq 

.~Di 


THE 

ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 

AND 

POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


Especially  for  Use  in  Colleges,  Schools,  Clubs,  Guilds 


Printed  and  Bound 


in  Ireland 


M.  H.  GILL  &  SON,  Ltd.,  Dublin  and  Waterford 


The 


Elements  of  Social  Science 

and 

* 

Political  Economy 

ESPECIALLY  FOR  USE  IN  COLLEGES,  SCHOOLS, 

CLUBS,  GUILDS,  &c. 


BY  THE 

VEN.  ARCHPRIEST  LORENZO  DARDANO 

OF  THE  COLLEGIATE  CHURCH,  BRONI,  NORTHERN  ITALY 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  ITALIAN 

BY  THE 

REV.  WILLIAM  McLOUGHLIN 

MOUNT  MELLERAY  ABBEY,  NEAR  CAPPOQUIN, '  CO.  WATERFORD 


{Cum  Permissu  Aucioris  et  Superiontm) 


New  York,  Cincinnati,  Chicago 

BENZIGER  BROTHERS 

PRINTERS  TO  THE  PUBLISHERS  OF 

HOLY  APOSTOLIC  SEE  BENZIGER’S  MAGAZINE 


J9°9 


in  Ireland 


TO 


LEO  XIII. 


WHO  RESCUES  THE 
DESOLATE  AND  WANDER¬ 
ING  CROWDS,  RECALLING  THEM  TO 
THE  ENJOYMENT  OF  THAT  LIGHT  WHICH 
THE  GENIUS  OF  THE  WISE,  UNITED 
WITH  THE  LABOUR  OF  THE 
HUMBLE,  BRINGS 
TO  MEN — 

TO 

LEO  XIII. 

THE 

UNWEARIED 
SCOURGER  OF  EVERY 
INJUSTICE,  INITIATING,  BY 
THE  AID  OF  HIS  SONS,  “  AN 
EQUAL  ORDER  OF  THINGS,” — THIS  LITTLE 
BOOK,  WRITTEN  CHIEFLY  FOR  YOUNG 
LEVITES,  THAT  THEY  MAY  BECOME  FIT  IN¬ 
STRUMENTS  IN  THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION, 
IS,  IN  THE  25TH  YEAR  OF  HIS 
PAPAL  REIGN,  DEDICATED, 

WITH  ALL  DEVOTED¬ 
NESS,  BY  THE 
AUTHOR 


< 


'/"T 


y 


LETTER  FROM  CARDINAL  RAMPOLLA 


The  Archpriest  and  Theologian  Lorenzo  Dardano  having, 
by  His  Eminence  Cardinal  Rampolla,  presented  to  His  Holiness 
Pope  Leo  XIII.  a  copy  of  his  book  on  the  Elements  of  Social 
Science,  &c.,  he  received  in  reply  the  following  much  esteemed 
letter : — 

Very  Reverend  Sir, 

I  have  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Holy  Father  one  of  the  copies 
that  you  sent  me  of  your  lately  published  book,  The  Elements 
of  Social  Science  and  Political  Economy.  The  title  alone  sufficed 
to  let  His  Holiness  understand  that  you  intended  to  make  easy 
for  young  clerics  the  manner  of  enriching  themselves  with  know¬ 
ledge  at  the  present  day  indispensable  to  gain  that  esteem  which 
they  require  in  order  to  render  their  ministry  acceptable  and 
fruitful. 

The  august  Pontiff  was  much  pleased  with  this  testimony  of 
your  homage,  and,  learning  that  the  work  had  been  praised  by 
your  Bishop,  was  still  more  pleased,  trusting  that  it  will  do  good 
among  students  and  other  young  people,  to  whom  it  is  chiefly 
addressed. 

While  adding  that  the  Holy  Father,  as  a  pledge  of  his  satisfac¬ 
tion,  bestows  on  you  from  his  heart  the  blessing  which  you  asked, 
I  thank  you  for  the  copy  which  you  so  kindly  sent  to  me,  and  I 
beg  to  declare  myself, 

Your  most  affectionate  Servant, 

M.  Card.  Rampolla. 


Rome,  October  1,  1902. 


LETTER  OF  THE  MOST  REV.  DR.  BANDI, 
BISHOP  OF  TORTONA,  TO  THE  AUTHOR 


Tortona,  Beginning  of  the  XXV.  year  of  the 
Pontificate  of  Leo  XIII. 

My  Very  Rev.  and  Dear  Archpriest, 

The  information  that  you  give  me  of  having  now  ready  for  the 
press  your  treatise  on  Social  Science  and  Political  Economy  is 
very  gratifying. 

I  knew  that  you  joined  the  study  of  social  order  to  that  of 
sacred  discipline.  I  knew  of  the  Circle  of  Social  Studies  that 
flourishes  in  your  parish,  receiving  light  from  the  Clergy  to  judge 
properly  of  the  controversies  that  occur  in  our  days  ;  I  was  always 
much  pleased  with  it,  because  I  believed,  and  I  still  believe, 
that  thus  the  words  of  the  Pope  will  have  a  happy  fulfilment. 

Hence  it  is  natural  that  I  should  hail  with  joy  the  publication 
of  your  work  on  Social  Science. 

And  as  I  am  here,  I  shall  add  a  few  remarks. 

For  priests  in  ten  or  twenty  years  to  come,  there  will  be  a  very 
serious,  a  very  laborious  time. 

The  conscience  of  the  people  is  to-day  awakened  after  an  age 
of  lethargy. 

Liberalism*  had  laid  this  popular  conscience  on  a  feather 
pillow,  saying  to  it :  Look,  all  goes  well,  just  as  if  you  were  on 
the  knees  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ ! 

The  people  disposed  themselves  to  sleep. 

But  liberalism  is  the  selfishness  of  men  who  wish  to  live  well, 
to  have  all  good  things  to  themselves,  without  a  thought  for  the 
welfare  of  others. 

And  thus  it  happened  that,  while  the  people  lay  asleep  under 
the  dose  of  opium  given  them,  liberalism  robbed  them  of  every¬ 
thing,  of  every  right  to  civil  life,  of  every  right  to  a  life  that  could 
be  called  truly  human.  To  put  them  into  a  much  deeper  sleep, 
a  beautiful  song  was  sung,  a  'patriotic  song.  Such  was  the  per¬ 
mission  of  Heaven.  A  society,  having  been  for  some  centuries 

*  It  may  be  well  to  remark  that  Liberalism  denotes  the  tenets  or  prin¬ 
ciples  of  a  Liberal ;  and  that  the  word  “  Liberal  ”  has  many  meanings.  It 
is  often  a  party  name,  used  in  opposition  to  Conservative.  A  Liberal  with 
us  is  supposed  to  be  free  from  bigotry  or  prejudice,  to  regard  all  the  citizens 
as  entitled  to  equal  justice,  and  to  advocate  an  extension  of  popular  rights. 
But  on  the  Continent  the  name  “  Liberal  ”  is  more  generally  'given  to  men 
who  follow  the  French  revolutionary  doctrines  of  1789,  who  consider  them¬ 
selves  independent  of  all  authority,  and  who,  as  far  as  lies  in  their  power, 
do  evil  and  prevent  good.  They  are  mostly  infidels,  and  are  sometimes 
called  anticlericals. — Trans. 


X 


LETTER  OF  MOST  REV.  DR.  BANDI 


Christian,  and  then  removing  little  by  little  from  Christ,  well 
deserved  that  a  return  to  Christ  should  be  a  laborious  task.  The 
parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  should  be  verified  again  in  society. 

I  have  said  that  the  people  were  asleep  :  I  might  have  said, 
intoxicated. 

In  point  of  fact,  the  people  ran  after  the  enemies  of  the  Church, 
waving  the  banner  of  rebellion.  With  the  help  of  the  people, 
those  enemies  accomplished  some  works,  not  devoid  of  value, 
but  without  the  Church,  nay,  against  the  Church ;  and  above 
the  edifice  of  modern  greatness — an  edifice  grounded  on  a  civilisa¬ 
tion  for  centuries  Christian — they  placed,  not  the  cross,  but  the 
flag  of  apostacy  and  schism. 

To  deny  that  our  enemies,  being  masters  of  the  world,  have 
made  some  conquests,  have  taken  some  steps  forward,  would  not 
be  fair,  because  it  is  not  true ;  it  would  be  to  fail  in  seeing  that 
the  destinies  of  a  society  which  for  a  long  period  had  been  nourished 
by  Christianity  should  mature.  What  our  enemies  did  of  them¬ 
selves  was  to  turn  against  the  Church  many  works  that  it  would 
have  completed,  if  it  had  not  been  ungratefully  driven  from 
public  life.  And  thus  they  unchristianised  industries,  arts, 
literature,  patriotism,  everything ;  and  they  said  to  the  world  : 
See  what  can  be  done  when  faith  does  not  stand  in  the  way,  and 
we  do  not  meet  the  garb  of  a  priest ! 

But  unchristianise  the  sciences,  arts,  &c.,  and  raise  the  standard 
of  battle  against  Jesus  Christ,  they  will  not  then  utter  a  cry, 
nor  induce  others  to  do  so  ;  no,  certainly  not.  Their  life,  how¬ 
ever  decorous  among  the  people,  has  not  the  right  relations  with 
the  animal  part  of  man,  which  feels  more  deeply  the  incon¬ 
veniences  of  being  physically  disturbed. 

Everything  having  been  laicised,  economy,  which  acts  without 
injury  to  Christian  charity  or  justice,  was  also  laicised.  Society, 
it  was  said,  in  the  air  of  liberty  will  live  well,  will  live  happy, 
will  live  prosperous. 

Where  Christianity  is  not,  there  is  selfishness,  and  the  strongest 
is  the  happiest.  It  was  so.  The  people,  whom  Christ  had 
ransomed  from  misery  and  slavery,  found  themselves  in  a  worse 
misery  and  slavery,  and  proved  for  themselves  that  the  yoke  of 
capitalists  without  conscience  is  no  less  heavy  than  that  of  pagan 
masters. 

The  people  found  that  the  pillow  of  feathers  gradually  turned 
to  one  of  thorns,  and  that  the  song  sung  for  them  was  only  a 
mockery  and  a  snare.  Being  ill  at  ease,  they  awoke. 

Such  is  the  point  at  which  we  have  to-day  arrived  :  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  the  people  is  awakened  by  the  stings  of  poverty, 
and  wishes  to  know  the  causes  of  its  distress.  This  consciousness 
is  not  fully  formed ;  but  it  tends  to  be  so.  It  is  a  very  serious 
matter.  If  the  people  know  that  their  trouble  comes  from  the 
need  of  Christianity,  they  will  return  to  Christ,  to  the  Church, 
to  the  Pope.  If  the  conviction  seizes  them  that  Christ  and  the 


LETTER  OE  MOST  REV.  DR.  BANDI 


xi 


Church  and  the  Pope  will  not  enter  into  their  sorrows  or  their 
joys,  they  will  begin  another  cycle  of  incredulity  and  wretchedness. 
It  will  then  be  necessary  to  wait  until  this  delusion  passes  away 
before  a  return  to  Christianity  can  be  expected. 

Behold  the  reason  why  the  Clergy,  whom  their  Divine  Author 
calls  the  light  of  the  world  and  the  salt  of  the  earth,  ought  to  be 
at  their  post ! 

Many  persons  say  that  they  would  be  glad  if  the  Clergy  stood 
aside,  and  let  men  of  the  world  scuffle  about  economic  affairs. 

As  for  being  glad,  I  also  would  be  so.  I  would  wish  that  all 
the  world  should  be  saints,  and  that  nothing  should  be  left  for 
the  Clergy  but  to  give  Holy  Communion,  and  attend  to  the  per¬ 
fection  of  their  own  souls.  But  all  our  wishes  do  not  change  the 
world  by  one  iota.  It  is  what  it  is,  and  it  shows  us  in  its  life  that 
character  which  events  impress  on  it.  Now,  we  live  in  the  world, 
and  our  work  ought  to  be  developed  according  to  its  wants. 

Have  not  worldly  goods  the  destiny  from  Providence  to  serve 
men,  to  serve  all  men,  for  the  attainment  of  their  last  end  ? 
And  if  they  are  turned  from  this  destiny  by  selfish  men  who 
snatch  from  others,  and  if  any  class  of  society  is  deprived  of  its 
share  in  the  common  welfare,  will  there  not  be  occasion  to  implore 
Christ  that  He  may  come  with  a  remedy  for  such  evils  ?  And 
by  whom  is  He  to  be  brought,  if  not  by  the  Catholic  priest  ?  To 
do  that,  there  must  be  a  knowledge  of  things,  there  must  be  a 
fitness  to  decide  questions,  there  must  be  an  abundance  of  clear 
and  precise  ideas.  If  the  Clergy  are  not  qualified  for  these 
struggles,  it  will  be  their  lot  also  to  stand  aside.  Others  will 
form  the  conscience  of  the  people.  They  will  form  it  without 
Christ,  and  against  Christ.  Then,  if  religious  apathy  characterised 
the  cycle  of  liberalism,  that  of  socialism  will  bear  the  seal  of  an 
infernal  hatred ;  and  no  longer  from  the  lips  only  of  the 
philosopher,  but  from  those  also  of  the  people,  will  be  heard  the 
satanic  cry,  Let  us  crush  the  monster  ! 

Yes,  I  know  that  the  Church  will  never  die.  But  I  say,  what 
a  strange  idea  do  those  form  of  the  Church  who  console  them¬ 
selves  with  the  thought  that  it  cannot  perish,  when  souls  are 
perishing  !  The  Church,  no,  it  cannot  perish  for  the  world,  but 
it  can  perish  for  individual  souls,  for  particular  nations,  which, 
being  torn  from  it,  cannot,  either  in  this  life  or  the  next,  enjoy 
the  beneficial  effects  of  belonging  to  it.  The  Church  will  not 
die,  but  we  who  have  not  lent  a  hand  to  make  it  live,  we  who  have 
betrayed  the  hopes  of  Christ,  we  shall  die. 

This  is  the  reason  why,  my  dear  Archpriest,  I  like  to  see  my 
Clergy  instructed  in  a  modern  manner,  so  that  at  every  moment  < 
they  may  declare  to  our  modern  world  the  rules  of  the  Redeemer. 

I  am  fully  aware  of  an  objection  that  will  be  made  to  me.  My 
lord,  it  will  be  said,  you  know  that  our  young  men  in  seminaries 
have  too  many  studies  to  occupy  their  early  years  :  would  you 
wish  to  add  to  their  number  ? 


LETTER  OF  MOST  KEY.  DR.  BANDI 


xii 

I  cannot  deny  it.  I  assert  only  that  the  study,  at  least  initial, 
of  this  important  social  question,  ought  to  be  joined  with  others. 
I  understand  very  well  that  no  one  can  pretend  to  social  science 
except  after  deep  and  earnest  study ;  nor  is  it  my  wish  hence¬ 
forward  to  promote  to  Holy  Orders  only  sociologists  or  economists. 
I  desire  in  my  seminary  a  safe  and  clear  beginning  of  these  studies. 
I  desire  the  treatment  of  certain  questions,  so  that  account  may  be 
made  of  occasions  on  which  one  would  have  to  pronounce  theo¬ 
logically  regarding  them.* 

The  beginnings  in  the  seminary  can  be  afterwards  enlarged 
upon  with  fruit  and  honour  by  our  young  clergymen. 

My  dear  Archpriest,  allow  me  here  to  say  a  word  to  the  Priests, 
especially  the  young. 

When  I  reflect  on  you,  my  dear  Priests,  I  do  not  know  how  to 
free  myself  from  a  thought  that  causes  me  great  pain  and  anxiety, 
the  thought  that  you  may  give  yourselves  to  an  idle  life.  It  is 
so  easy.  I  say  the  truth,  and  therefore  I  say  it  candidly.  If 
there  is  any  class  of  persons  who  have  the  opportunity  of  willingly 
giving  themselves  to  idleness,  it  is  that  of  Priests,  and  especially 
Priests  who,  scattered  here  and  there  through  the  country,  are 
charged  with  the  care  of  souls.  In  most  parishes,  the  work — 
that  work  which  cannot  be  omitted  without  offending  the  eye — • 
is  reduced  to  a  few  hours  of  the  day.  Then,  in  the  rest  of  the 
day,  in  the  long  winter  evenings,  so  many  free  hours,  precious 
hours  for  him  who  understands  the  importance  of  work  or  study, 
but  ruinous  hours  for  him  who  gives  himself  to  idleness  !  Let 
me  say  it,  my  dear  friends  :  if  you  abandon  yourselves  to  idleness, 
I  am  no  longer  sure  of  your  virtue — of  your  fidelity  to  those 
promises  which,  at  your  sacred  ordination,  you  made  with  all  the 
enthusiasm  of  a  fervent  faith. 

These  are  the  hours,  my  dear  Priests,  that  you  ought  to  con¬ 
secrate  to  studies,  especially  to  those  which,  scarcely  begun  in 
the  seminary,  ought  to  be  thoroughly  mastered,  so  that  you 
may  become  Priests  such  as  our  times  require. 

Turning  again  to  you,  my  dear  Archpriest,  I  wish  to  note  a 
point  that  will  facilitate  for  us,  if  fairly  awake,  the  conquest  of 
the  people  under  the  white  flag  of  Christian  Democracy,  and  it  is 

« 

*  These  same  views  are  very  well  expressed  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  John  A. 
Ryan,  of  St.  Paul  Seminary,  Minnesota,  writing  in  the  American  Ecclesias¬ 
tical  Review,  August,  1908.  He  says  : —  “  The  importance  to  the  Clergy  of 
an  understanding  of  our  social  problems  will  increase  with  the  inevitable 
increase  of  the  problems  themselves.  Therefore,  the  Priest  of  the  future 
should  be  equipped  to  deal  intelligently  with  these  problems  from  the  very 
outset  of  his  ministry.  To  this  end  he  should  receive  in  the  Seminary  an 
amount  of  social  instruction  which  will  be  fundamental  and  scientific  ; 
which  will  be  sufficiently  extensive  to  make  him  acquainted  with  the  vital 
facts  of  current  social  conditions,  tendencies,  and  doctrines ;  which  will  be 
sufficiently  stimulating  to  give  him  a  lasting  interest  in  these  phenomena  ; 
and  which  will  be  sufficiently  thorough  to  enable  him  to  deal  intelligently, 
justly,  and  charitably  with  the  practical  situations  that  he  will  be  compelled 
to  face  afterwards.” — Trans. 


LETTEB  OF  MOST  KEY.  DK.  BANDI 


XLll 


the  character,  always  most  conspicuously  anticlerical,  that 
socialism  takes.  The  war  on  St.  Alphonsus,  a  war  that  cannot  be 
called  rational,  it  is  so  stupid,  so  absurd— the  hatred  against 
the  Clergy  that  every  day  appears  in  the  spoken  and  written 
words  of  the  socialists,  and  their  campaign  in  favour  of  divorce — 
these  facts  are  a  superabundant  proof  that  they  do  not  seek  to 
better  the  condition  of  the  people,  but  to  unchristianise  them. 

Can  even  the  socialists  deny  it  ? 

Their  publications,  in  the  form  of  pamphlets  or  periodicals, 
are  like*  so  much  mud  taken  from  the  puddles  of  Protestantism. 
It  is  usual,  we  admit,  to  cover  this  mud  with  the  flowers  and 
fruits  of  economic  amelioration.  But  all  the  same  :  the  substance 
is  materialism,  irreligion,  impiety,  apostasy.  There  is  no  wish 
that  the  people  should  go  to  confession,  should  receive  the  sacra¬ 
ments,  should  believe  and  follow  our  Divine  Saviour.  There  is 
no  such  wish. 

On  these  matters  we  ought  to  instruct  the  good  people,  that 
they  may  know  the  object  of  certain  speech-makers  and  editors. 
We  ought  at  the  same  time  to  explain  to  them  the  programme  of 
Papal  Democracy,  and  show  them  how  it  contains  a  condemna¬ 
tion  of  those  who  at  present  flatter  them  with  the  mirage  of  unity. 
The  people  will  then  belong  to  us,  to  the  Pope,  to  Christ.  And 
the  people,  having  become  entirely  Christian,  will  know  how  to 
put  an  end  to  the  social  injustices  that  oppress  the  Church  and 
the  toilers. 

I  am  well  aware  that  some  men  reason  thus  : — Let  the  deluded 
follow  socialism.  It  is  a  meteor  that  will  soon  pass  away,  and 
leave  them  in  darkness  and  misery.  The  day  of  being  undeceived 
will  soon  arrive,  and  the  workman  and  the  countryman  will  turn 
to  us. 

This  reasoning  fails  in  charity,  and  therefore  is  not  Christian. 
One  single  hour  of  moral  perversity,  of  wandering  from  the  right 
course,  ought  not  to  be  permitted  among  our  people,  in  the  minds 
of  our  brethren,  if  it  can  be  prevented.  J esus  Christ  should  reign 
over  all  minds,  and  at  every  moment  of  our  existence. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  known  what  road,  after  delusion, 
minds  betrayed  and  perplexed  may  take.  They  make  take, 
and  it  is  easily  done,  a  more  disastrous  road,  leading  them  farther 
and  farther  from  Our  Saviour. 

However — I  wish  to  utter  another  thought  candidly — the 
continual  bringing  forward  of  socialism  and  socialists,  when 
there  is  question  of  exciting  Catholics  to  social  action,  is  not 
well.  It  appears  as  if  the  socialist  propaganda  was  the  only 
affair  about  which  we  ought  to  be  concerned.  Now,  that  is  so 
false  that  it  cannot  be  borne. 

I  alluded,  at  the  beginning  of  my  remarks  (and  it  would  be  a 
subject  for  long  argument),  to  the  slow  but  disastrous  work  that 
liberalism  has  accomplished,  inflicting  the  most  serious  injury 
on  the  Church  and  on  the  poor  people.  It  has  treated  both  as 


XIV 


LETTER  OF  MOST  REV.  DR.  BANDI 


its  own  creatures,  which  it  might  reform  and  refashion  at  pleasure. 
It  made  a  favour  of  existence  to  the  people,  because  their  labour 
gives  produce.  It  showed  some  favour  to  the  Church,  because 
the  Church  defends  order.  And  do  we  not  still  hear  from  un¬ 
conscionable  lips  that  religion  means  nothing  for  the  people  but 
misfortune  ? 

Now,  that  one  portion  of  humanity  should  be  oppressed  by 
another  is  neither  justice  nor  charity.  And  who  are  to  vindicate 
the  cause  of  justice  or  of  charity,  if  not  Catholics,  and  especially 
the  Clergy  ? 

Read  and  meditate  on  the  Rerum  novarum,  and  you  will  find 
that  Leo  XIII.,  having  laid  bare  the  evils  that  liberalism  has 
brought  on  society,  calls  Catholics  to  the  work  of  restoration. 
The  Pope  does  not  say  :  It  is  the  socialists  who  are  ruining  every¬ 
thing,  let  us  oppose  them.  But  he  says  :  It  is  liberalism  that  has 
ruined  everything ;  we  ought  to  reconstruct  everything. 

See  how  the  same  Pope  speaks  in  1903  to  Gaspar  Decurtius  : — 
Nothing  is  more  pleasing  to  us  than,  when  an  occasion  occurs, 
to  show  our  love  and  solicitude  for  the  working  classes,  whose 
miserable  condition  w~e  wish  to  see  improved,  that  it  may  be 
made  worthy  of  civilised  people,  under  the  guidance  of  justice 
and  charity,  which  the  Christian  religion  brought  to  all  the  earth, 
and  has  always  promoted  more  and  more.  For  the  nature  of  our 
ministry  implies  that  we  should  be  always  disposed  to  bring 
aid  where  tribulation  calls  for  comfort,  weakness  for  protection, 
misery  for  relief.  Moved  by  a  consciousness  of  this  duty,  and 
mindful  of  the  teachings  of  our  Divine  Saviour  to  the  human 
race,  we  have  already  uttered  to  the  Catholic  world  some  words 
of  peace  and  love  in  the  encyclical  Rerum  novarum,  setting  forth 
a  sound  basis  (as  all  desire)  on  which  to  raise  an  equal  order  of 
things,  whereby,  the  old  dispute  between  masters  and  workmen 
being  ended,  a  lasting  peace  may  follow  for  human  society. 

It  is  clear.  The  Pope  speaks  of  duty,  the  duty  of  bringing 
about  an  equal  order  of  things  ;  therefore,  he  means  that  the 
present  order  is  not  an  equal  one. 

Socialism,  I  know,  makes  things  worse,  and  its  action  ought  to  be 
a  strong  reason  for  moving  us.  But,  in  charity,  let  us  not  say 
that  socialism  is  what  moves  us.  Society  is  sick  :  socialism  is 
the  surgeon,  who  seeks  to  strangle  it,  under  pretence  of  curing  it. 
Will  it  be  enough  to  turn  out  the  ill-omened  surgeon  ?  No ; 
we  must  try  to  cure  society. 

It  is  said,  and  often  said  : — In  my  parish  there  are  no  socialists  ; 
therefore  Christian  Democracy,  with  its  programme  of  organisa¬ 
tion,  is  not  required.  It  is  all  right  in  its  place.  We  are  sick 
indeed ;  but  at  present  there  is  no  danger  of  anything  worse ; 
we  do  not  trouble  ourselves  about  remedies. 

In  such  case  it  should  be  easily  understood  that  the  evil  is 
general,  and  the  remedy  ought  also  to  be  general.  If  the  Pope 
has  spoken,  and  he  has  spoken  for  all  persons  and  all  places, 


LETTER  OF  MOST  REV.  DR.  BANDI 


xv 


all  those  excuses  are  very  miserable  that  would  prevent  anyone 
from  putting  his  words  in  practice. 

Turning  to  your  little  treatise,  my  dear  Archpriest,  I  express 
a  wish,  the  wish  that  it  may  pass  into  the  hands,  not  only  of 
the  students  in  our  seminary,  but  also  of  lay  people,  especially 
the  young  men  who  are  enrolled  in  our  associations.  I  should 
wish  also  that  the  Clergy  connected  with  these  bodies  would  avail 
themselves  of  it  to  instruct  our  associates,  and  to  make  tliem  a 
little  more  wide  awake.  Oh,  how  many  times  has  there  been 
reason. to  lament  in  our  associates  a  weakness,  a  fear,  that  dis¬ 
banded  them  at  the  first  breath  of^a  contrary  wind!  Why? 
Because  they  had  not  a  clear  consciousness  of  their  position; 
they  did  not  know  what  they  were. 

Let  them  learn  from  instruction.  Let  ideas,  ideas,  ideas  be 
sown  in  their  minds,  though  rough.  Then  will  there  be  men 
fighting  under  a  conviction. 

You  have  done  very  well  in  dedicating  your  book  to  Leo  XIII. 

Oh,  the  great  Leo  !  How  he  always  pleases,  how  he  is  always 
loved,  how  willingly  he  is  praised  !  Is  it  not  so  ? 

His  very  name  is  an  example,  a  school,  a  consolation,  an  in¬ 
centive,  and  a  reproof.  It  is  eleven  years  now  since  he  launched 
on  the  world  his  Rerum  novarum.  If  we  had  all  fallen  into  rank 
behind  him,  if  we  had  all  fully  understood  the  meaning  of  that 
document,  if  we  had  not  been  sunk  in  Byzantinism,  God  knows 
at  what  a  stage  we  should  be  arrived  to-day.  But  reproach 
ought  not  to  find  place  at  this  festive  hour,  which  the  Catholic 
world  is  celebrating  around  the  great  Pope. 

In  a  resolute  will  to  labour  for  the  establishment  of  the 
programme  of  Papal  Democracy,  let  my  soul  exult,  and  let  my 
hymn  end  thus  :  Long  live  the  Pope  of  the  workingmen,  long 
live  Leo  XIII.  ! 

Yours  devotedly, 


Igino,  Bishop. 


AUTHOR’S  PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST 

EDITION 


A  word  on  what  I  have  proposed  to  do.  I  am  a  poor  student, 
and  at  the  same  time  a  parish  priest :  two  things  that  agree 
only  in  a*  so-so  way.  Study  needs  quiet,  concentration,  plenty 
of  time.  On  the  other  hand,  the  care  of  a  parish,  especially 
if  somewhat  large,  is  a  continual  interruption  of  the  head  and  the 
heart.  The  beads  must  be  laid  aside,  and  there  are  many  calls 
on  the  pocket.  Yet  I  desire  to  live  the  life  of  our  times  ;  I  desire 
it  by  nature  and  by  duty.  I  say  by  duty,  because  I  cannot  imagine 
a  parish  priest,  or  indeed  any  priest,  that  lives  materially  in  one 
world  and  officially  in  another.  And  I  know  that  I  do  not 
blaspheme  in  saying  so  ;  for,  with  me,  the  encyclicals  of  Leo  XIII. 
are  not  only  beautiful  things,  but  solemn  commands. 

And  there,  I  mean  in  those  papal  acts,  there  is  lived  the  life 
of  our  times. 

I  study  therefore,  and  as  carefully  as  possible. 

As  during  my  life  I  have  several  times  had  the  honour  of  taking 
the  chair  and  calling  young  clerics  around  me,  to  share  in  the 
fruits  of  my  studies,  such  as  they  were,  it  has  occurred  to  me 
that  I  should  string  together  my  notes  and  present  them  to 
young  Levites,  who  may  thus  be  helped  to  become  priests  suited 
to  the  times  and  worthy  of  the  Pope. 

I  believe  that  there  is  need  of  acting  in  a  decided  manner, 
and  that  a  circle  of  the  Catholic  social  propaganda  should  be 
established  in  every  parish.  Especially  should  we  call  the  young- 
men  around  us,  and  instruct  them,  and  I  should  be  glad  to  see 
this  little  book  in  their  hands. 

Such  were  my  views.  If  I  have  not  succeeded,  I  shall  not  be 
too  much  grieved. 


b 


AUTHOR’S  PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND 

EDITION 


I 

The  favour  of  the  public  towards  this  little  book  was  so  great 
that  certainly  I  should  not  have  dared  to  expect  it.  In  particular, 
our  venerable  seminaries  opened  their  doors  kindly  to  the  work. 
That  I  am  content,  all  will  readily  believe.  But  the  reason 
why  I  am  content,  at  least  the  principal  reason,  will  not  perhaps 
be  believed  by  all.  No  matter  :  I  shall  mention  it  just  the  same. 
The  cordial  welcome  given  to  the  book  is  a  sure  proof  to  me 
that  the  minds  of  Catholics,  of  young  Levites,  feel  the  need  of 
quenching  their  thirst  with  the  water  of  new  ideas — those  ideas 
of  which  the  lamented  Leo  XIII.  was  the  indefatigable  and 
authoritative  advocate.  To  see  souls  rushing  towards  the  light 
is  always  a  consolation ;  much  more,  when  we  are  convinced 
that  that  light  is  indispensably  necessary  for  the  age  in  which 
we  live. 

Meanwhile,  the  Pope,  who  blessed  this  little  work  when  it  was 
first  timidly  presented  to  the  public,  has  gone  to  Heaven.  And 
I,  while  I  prepare  this  new  edition,  turn  my  eyes  towards  the 
Chair  of  Peter,  but  see  him  there  no  more. 

I  see  there,  however,  another  man,  clothed  in  white,  who 
likewise  smiles,  blesses  his  children  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  and 
continues  the  mission  of  Leo  XIII.  It  is  Pius  X.,  the  new  Vicar 
of  Jesus  Christ.  I,  as  a  devoted  son,  bow  to  him,  and  in  his  name 
I  present  to  the  public  this  second  edition  of  my  work. 


I 


TRANSLATOR’S  PREFACE 


The  introductory  pages  presented  by  the  Author  say  nearly 
everything  that  need  be  said  on  the  object  of  this  book. 

As  a  writer,  he  distinguishes  himself  by  the  facility  with  which 
he  explains  his  views,  unravels  difficulties,  and  supports  his 
arguments.  His  style,  no  less  interesting  than  instructive,  is 
just  what  might  be  expected  from  a  scholarly  man,  convinced 
of  the  truths  that  he  inculcates,  and  experienced  in  a  good  method 
of  communicating  his  knowledge  to  others.  The  translation  is 
from  the  second  Italian  edition. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  an  elementary  treatise  such  as  the 
present,  derived  from  sound  Christian  principles,  ought  to  be 
exceedingly  useful,  especially  in  Ireland,  where  society,  after 
centuries  of  trouble,  is  still  much  disorganised.  Day  by  day 
there  are  discussions  in  the  press  and  elsewhere  on  matters  con¬ 
nected  with  social  science ;  and  many  men,  for  want  of  proper 
information,  are  apt  to  take  erroneous  views,  with  injury  to 
themselves  and  others.  If  it  is  a  great  evil  to  maintain  false 
maxims,  it  may  be  as  great  a  misfortune  to  let  them  pass  un¬ 
refuted. 

The  works  of  such  writers  on  social  questions  as  Hume,  Smith, 
Ricardo,  Marx,  Mill,  Spencer,  &c.,  are  so  wanting  in  a  moral 
basis,  are  so  tainted  with  a  disregard  and  sometimes  even  a 
contempt  of  religion,  that  little  reliance  can  be  placed  on  any 
system  taught  by  them.  How,  indeed,  could  it  be  expected 
that  men  who  err  so  grossly  on  the  most  important  of  all  subjects 
should  be  safe  guides  on  other  subjects  ?  Limiting  their  views 
entirely  to  this  world,  some  writing  in  the  interests  of  the  richer 
classes,  others  encouraging  the  poorer  classes  to  the  most  revolu¬ 
tionary  schemes,  they  may  dazzle  by  their  talents,  perhaps 
naturally  of  a  high  order,  but  they  will  not  be  able  to  direct  their 
fellow-men  on  the  proper  course  of  life. 

Works  of  the  kind  just  referred  to  are  very  numerous.  In  the 
section  given  to  Political  Economy  in  the  catalogue  of  one  London 


xxn 


TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE 


publishing  house,  we  have  seen  mention  of  nearly  eighty  authors, 
among  whom  there  was  perhaps  not  more  than  one,  if  even  one, 
a  Catholic.  How  great,  therefore,  the  need  of  Catholic  works 
on  social  matters  ! 

The  title  “  Archpriest,"  pertaining  to  the  Author,  may  be 
new  to  many ;  formerly  it  was  common  enough  in  the  Church. 
It  denoted  the  chief  Priest  of  a  district,  just  as  Archdeacon 
denoted  chief  Deacon  and  Archbishop  chief  Bishop.  The  Arch¬ 
priest  was  the  Bishop's  right-hand  man  in  spiritual  matters, 
as  the  Archdeacon  was  in  temporal  ones.  Latterly,  the  title 
has  disappeared  by  degrees  in  many  parts  of  the  world.  Yet 
even  in  the  nineteenth  century,  we  find  that,  through  want  of 
Bishops  in  Holland,  three  Archpriests  (those  of  Amsterdam, 
Utrecht,  and  Zealand)  exercised  jurisdiction  for  a  time  in  the 
name  of  the  Pope. 

As  the  author  of  this  work  grounds  his  arguments  in  great 
measure  on  the  encyclical  letters  of  the  illustrious  Pope  Leo  XIII., 
who  was  so  competent  to  examine,  to  discuss,  and  to  solve  the 
most  difficult  problems  relating  to  the  affairs  of  mankind,  it  is 
hoped  that  the  book  in  its  English  form  will  be  found,  as  in  the 
Italian,  a  store-house  of  the  best  principles  for  promoting  the 
welfare  of  society. 

Possibly  the  District  Councils  of  Ireland  could  do  much  for 
the  benefit  of  the  country  by  assisting  the  people  of  their 
districts  to  organise  in  the  manner  so  strongly  and  frequently 
recommended  by  the  author. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

DEDICATION  TO  THE  POPE  .  v 

LETTER  PROM  CARDINAL  RAMPOLLA,  ON  THE  PART  OF 

POPE  LEO  XIII.  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  vii 

LETTER  OF  THE  MOST  REV.  DR.  BANDI,  BISHOP  OF 

TORTONA  ...  ...  ...  „  ...  ...  ...  ix 

AUTHOR’S  PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION .  xvii 

AUTHOR’S  PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION  ...  xix 

TRANSLATOR’S  PREFACE  ...  ...  ...  ...  xxi 

FIRST  PART. 

THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE. 

CHAPTER  I. 

ORIGIN  AND  OBJECT  OF  SOCIETY. 

SECTION. 

I.  Sociology  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  1 

II.  Society  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  2 

III.  The  First  Reason  for  Society  or  the  Efficient  Cause  of  the 

Social  Fact  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  3 

IV.  The  Social  Compact  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  5 

V.  Social  Duties  and  Rights  ...  ...  ...  ...  5 

VI.  Life  and  Social  Goods ;  Public  Good  and  Common  Good ; 

Scope  of  Society  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  6 

VII.  Social  Functions ;  Social  Organism  ...  ...  ...  10 

VIII.  Social  Organisations ;  Business  Unions  ...  ...  ...  11 

IX.  Ancient  Slavery  and  Modern  Proletairism  ...  ...  16 

X.  The  Social  Question  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  17 

XI.  Christian  Democracy  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  19 

XII.  The  Foundations  of  Social  Life  ...  ...,/  ...  ...  22 

XIII.  Justice  and  Charity  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  23 

CHAPTER  II. 

CLEAR  IDEAS. 

I.  Social  Elements  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  27 

II.  Man  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  27 

III.  The  Human  Person :  Liberal  Idea  ...  ...  ...  27 

IV.  The  Human  Person :  Christian  Idea  ...  ...  ...  30 


XXIV 


CONTENTS 


SECTION. 

V.  Duties  and  Rights 

VI.  The  Duties  of  Man 

VII.  The  Rights  of  Man 

VIII.  The  Equality  of  Men  ... 

IX.  Wants,  Desires,  and  Pleasures  ... 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  FAMILY. 

I.  The  Cellule  of  Society  ... 

II.  Institution  of  the  Family 

III.  Husband,  Wife,  and  Children 

IV.  The  Rights  and  Duties  of  the  Family 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  COMMUNE 

I.  Union  of  Families 

II.  Autonomy  of  the  Commune 

III.  Functions  of  the  Commune 

IV.  Functions  of  the  Commune  towards  Workpeople  ... 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  STATE  AND  ITS  DUTIES. 

I.  Union  of  Communes 

II.  Origin  and  Nature  of  the  State  ... 

III.  End  and  Duties  of  the  State 

IV.  Duties  of  the  State  towards  the  Citizens  ... 

V.  Duties  of  the  State  towards  Itself 

VI.  Duties  of  the  State  towards  Families 

VII.  Duties  of  the  State  towards  Communes  ... 

VIII.  Duties  of  the  State  towards  the  Church  ... 

IX.  Duties  of  the  State  towards  Private  Associations  ... 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  RIGHTS  OF  THE  STATE. 

I.  Wellbeing  of  the  State  ... 

II.  Personal  Contribution  ... 

III.  Real  Contribution 


CONTENTS 


XXV 


$L, 

CHAPTER  VII. 


AUTHORITY. 

SECTION.  PAGE 

I.  A  Natural  Hierarchy  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  78 

II.  Origin  of  Authority  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  79 

III.  Form  of  Government  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  80 

IV.  The  Representative  Form  ...  ...  ...  ...  81 

V.  Tlje  Sovereignty  of  the  People  ...  ...  ...  ...  83 

VI.  Functions  of  Social  Authority  ...  ,  ...  ...  ...  84 

Notes  to  the  First  Part  ...  ...  ...  ...  87 


4 


SECOND  PART. 

THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 

CHAPTER  I. 

MEANING  AND  OBJECT  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 


I.  Utility,  Value,  and  Abundance  of  Goods  ...  ...  ...  95 

II.  Laws  of  Value  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  98 

III.  The  Theory  of  Karl  Marx  on  Value  ...  ...  ...  99 

IV.  A  Moral  Foundation  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  100 

V.  Poverty  and  Pauperism  ...  ...  ...  ...  101 

VI.  The  Factors  in  a  Right  Ordering  of  Society  ...  ...  102 


CHAPTER  II. 

PRODUCTION  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  GOODS. 

105 

107 

108 
109 

no 

113 
115 


I.  The  Productive  Process 
II.  The  Factors  in  Production 
IIL  Harmony  in  Work 
IV.  A  Great  Problem 
V.  Proprietorship  or  Ownership 
VL  The  Right  and  the  Effects  of  Ownership  ... 

VII.  Duties  of  Political  Authority  with  Regard  to  Ownership 


XXVI 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  III. 


ABUNDANCE  OF  WORLDLY  GOODS. 

SECTION. 

I.  Nature  ...  ...  ...  ...  ... 

II.  The  Earth 

III.  Land  Ownership 

IV.  Land  Return 

V.  Which  is  the  Best  Form  of  Ownership  ?  ... 

VI.  Aid  for  Small  Owners  ... 


PAGE 

lid 

117 

118 
119 
121 
122 


CHAPTER  IV. 

MAN  MUST  WORK. 


I.  Lahour  ...  ...  ...  ... 

II.  Productivity  of  Labour 

III.  Relations  between  Labour  and  Produce  ... 

IV.  Moral  Coefficients  of  Labour 

V.  Physical  Coefficients  of  Labour  ... 

VI.  Limits  of  Labour 

VII.  Labour  of  Women  and  Children 

VIII.  Legal  Guardianship  of  Labour  ... 

IX.  International  Legislation  on  Labour 


125 

127 

129 

130 

131 
133 

138 

139 

140 


CHAPTER  V. 


CAPITAL  IS  REQUIRED  AS  WELL  AS  LABOUR. 

I.  Utility  of  Capital  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  142 

II.  Different  Views  of  Capital  ...  ...  ...  ...  142 

III.  The  Capitalist  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  143 

IV.  The  Theory  of  Marx  on  Capital  ...  ...  ...  ...  143 

V.  Productivity  of  Capital  ...  ...  ...  ...  144 


CHAPTER  VI. 

INDUSTRY. 


I.  Varieties  of  Industry  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  146 

II.  Small  and  Large  Industries  ...  ...  ...  ...  147 

III.  The  Undertaker  or  Contractor  ...  ...  ...  ...  151 

IV.  The  Contract  of  Labour  ...  ...  ...  ...  152 

V.  The  Co-operative  System  ...  ...  ...  ...  153 

VI.  Wages  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  15& 


CONTENTS 

xxv  ii 

CHAPTER  VII. 

AGRICULTURAL  INDUSTRY. 

PAGE 

SECTION. 

I.  Systems  and  Contracts 

...  158 

II.  Mezzadria  or  Metayage 

...  159 

III.  Rent 

...  161 

IV.  Perpetual  Rent 

...  163 

V.  Rural  Wages  ... 

» 

...  164 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

COMMERCIAL  INDUSTRY. 

I.  Transport  of  Goods 

...  165 

II.  Exchange;  Value;  Money;  Price 

...  166 

III.  Value  of  Money 

...  168 

IV.  Merchants  ;  Profits  ;  Wholesale  and  Retail  Business 

...  170 

V.  Co-operative  Societies  ... 

...  171 

CONCLUSION  .  171 


Notes  to  the  Second  Part 


•  •  • 


«  •  » 


173 


FIRST  PART. 

THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ORIGIN  AND  OBJECT  OF  SOCIETY. 

Section  I. — Sociology. 

Sociology  means  the  study  or  science  of  society. 

But  this  definition  of  the  name  is  too  vague,  and  has  to  be 
made  more  precise  by  a  definition  of  the  thing. 

Human  society  is  a  fact,  a  fact  so  close  to  man  that  the  mind 
has  not  been  able  to  avoid  casting  a  glance  at  it  from  the  earliest 
times. 

But  a  glance  does  not  make  science,  which  is  “  certain  and 
evident  knowledge,  having  its  causes  in  the  thing  known.” 
(Cornoldi,  La  Filos.  Scol.) 

To  be  a  science,  therefore,  sociology  should  take  a  broad  view 
of  society,  which  would  embrace  all ;  an  accurate  view,  which 
could  explain  all. 

We  shall  therefore  be  able  to  define  sociology  as  “  a  science 
that  studies  society  in  its  causes,  with  the  object  of  procuring 
its  perfection.” 

This  definition  requires  a  few  explanations. 

1.  We  say  Science ,  because  the  precepts  that  it  gives  for  social 
wellbeing  will  be  truly  good  and  conducive  to  their  end  when 
they  are  drawn,  by  means  of  study,  from  the  inward  nature 
of  society  and  from  the  laws  that  govern  it :  a  process 
eminently  scientific. 

2.  In  its  Causes. — By  these  words  the  object  of  sociology 
is  embraced  in  its  entirety,  and  the  knowledge  of  it  will  be  full — 
truly  scientific. 

3.  With  the  Object  of  Procuring  its  Perfection. — Sociology 
is  a  science  most  practical ;  or  rather  the  need  of  putting  it  in 
practice  has  given  rise  to  it.  Its  tendency  and  importance 
are  therefore  evident.1 

From  these  brief  remarks  on  the  scope  of  sociology  every 
one  can  see  how  far  it  reaches,  and  how,  like  other  sciences, 


2 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


it  also  gives  out  from  its  trunk  some  particular  sciences,  which 
relate  to  special  points.  Thus  politics,  finance,  political 
economy,  &c.,  form  parts  of  sociological  science.2 


Section  II. — Society. 

As  is  evident,  our  study  ought  to  begin  by  forming  an  idea 
of  what  society  is,  a  just  idea — that  alone  which,  drawn  from 
fact,  is  like  a  photograph  of  the  truth.  And  the  fact  we  have 
present,  or  rather  we  are  a  part  of  it  ourselves. 

What  do  we  see  on  earth  ?  Perhaps  men  wandering  about, 
like  atoms  in  the  air,  as  unconcerned  about  one  another  as  the 
beasts.  No ;  we  see  on  earth  men  that  not  only  go  about  like 
atoms,  not  only  have  life  like  beasts,  not  only  live  together, 
but  they  constitute  a  great  family,  which  we  are  accustomed 
to  call  society. 

A  short  but  accurate  analysis  of  the  idea  of  society  is  most 
necessary  as  a  foundation  for  our  study. 

Society  means  above  all  a  plurality  of  creatures.  But  not 
this  alone  ;  for  then  the  stars  of  heaven  would  be  a  society. 

It  means  aggregation  or  union ;  but  we  do  not  call  a  heap 
of  stones  or  a  group  of  houses  a  society. 

It  also  means  living  together ;  but  many  horses  that  live 
together  are  not  a  society. 

Remember,  therefore,  from  the  examples  given,  that  an 
aggregate  is  not  that  which  merely  wants  something  in  order 
to  be  a  society  :  for  there  are  aggregates  which  are  essentially 
incapable  of  becoming  a  society.  If  we  with  our  imagination 
give  life  and  reason  to  any  of  the  creatures  mentioned,  we  find 
no  difficulty  in  saying  that  they  are  capable  of  forming  a  society. 

Therefore  society  cannot  be  formed  except  among  intelligent 
beings. 

But  is  it  enough  that  they  should  be  intelligent  to  have  society  ? 
No ;  although  intelligent,  although  living  together,  many  beings 
are  not  yet  society.  There  is  something  wanting  that  must 
change  the  living  together  from  material  to  formal.  To  five 
is  to  act,  and  the  living  together  will  mean  co-operation. 
Operation  is  performed  by  an  intelligent  being  for  an  end ;  and 
the  co-operation  of  many  individuals  ought  to  have  that  end 
which  will  be  appropriately  called  the  common  good.* 

We  shall  now  be  able  to  define  human  society  as  a  living 
together  of  men  that  co-operate  for  the  common  good. 

In  what  this  common  good  is  to  be  placed  we  shall  very  soon  see. 

To  study  society,  to  examine  the  laws  that  govern  it  so  as 

*  According  to  the  outlines  just  given,  the  living  together  (or  bodily 
assemblage)  of  many  persons  is  the  material  cause  of  human  society;  co¬ 
operation,  the  formal  cause ;  and  the  common  good,  the  final  cause. — Trans. 


THE  FIRST  REASON  FOR  SOCIETY 


3 


to  produce  a  most  flourishing  condition  of  social  life,  is  the  task 
of  sociology.  And  this  task  we  shall  be  able  to  accomplish  if 
we  study  the  efficient ,  material ,  formal ,  and  final  causes  of  society, 
because  we  shall  then  have  exhausted  the  subject.  Cornoldi 
wrote  in  a  general  way  : — “  It  is  to  be  observed  that  there  are 
four  causes — the  efficient,  the  material,  the  formal,  and  the 
final.  Now,  when  these  four  causes  of  anything  can  be  ascer¬ 
tained,  to  know  it  with  a  scientific  knowledge,  the  said  causes 
should  be  known,  since  scientific  knowledge  should  be  full.” 

Whether  the  language  of  the  schools  or  some  other  is  used, 
it  is  certain  that  our  study  ought  fully  to  embrace  the  social 
fact,  to  examine  it  in  the  matter  of  which  it  is  composed,  in 
the  forces  by  which  it  is  regulated,  and  in  the  end  to  which  it 
is  directed. 


Section  III. — The  First  Reason  for  Society  or  the 
Efficient  Cause  of  the  Social  Fact. 

Let  us  mention  the  first  or  fundamental  reason  for  society, 
or  rather  the  efficient  cause  of  society,  that  which  answers  to 
the  question — Whence  comes  it  that  men  live  in  society  ? 
Let  us  find  out  the  element  of  this  efficiency. 

We  shall  suppose  that  there  are  only  fifteen  men  on  earth, 
living  in  different  and  distant  places,  so  that  each  one  believes 
himself  the  only  man  in  the  world. 

What  are  we  to  think  of  them  ?  That  they  will  feel  the 
affliction  of  the  desert,  that  from  their  heart  they  will  heave  a 
sigh,  that  in  morals  they  will  be  discouraged.  We  think  so 
because  we  are  convinced  that,  if  we  were  placed  in  like  cir¬ 
cumstances,  we  should  have  such  sentiments. 

Let  us  now  imagine  that  at  length  each  of  these  men  learns 
that  other  men  exist  on  earth,  far  away  from  him,  but  men 
like  himself.  At  this  revelation  we  see  their  countenances  beam 
with  joy.  Not  only  so ;  but  we  see  them  set  out  in  search  of 
one  another,  and,  having  met,  inquire  about  the  fact  and  the 
object  of  their  existence.  They  find  that  a  chief  purpose 
of  living  is  to  live  together,  that  they  may  help  one  another 
to  live  better,  and  thus  more  easily  attain  the  common  end. 
Now,  here  a  question  arises  :  Was  it  fancy,  springing  up  at  the 
same  time  in  the  mind  of  every  man,  that  urged  them  to  live 
together  and  to  co-operate,  or  something  else,  and  if  so,  what 
was  it  ? 

Let  us  suppose  ourselves  to  be  in  the  place  of  these  solitary 
men.  On  hearing  that  other  men  like  ourselves  exist,  what  is 
it  that  would  awake  in  us  the  sentiments  which  we  have  described  ? 

1.  The  need  of  being  with  them — in  other  words,  the  need  of 
loving  them. 

2.  The  desire  of  having  co-operation.  Man  feels  himself 


4 


THE  ELEMENTS  OE  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


born  for  happiness,  and  he  tends  to  it  with  all  his  power.  He 
feels  that  his  joys  are  few  and  limited,  and  that,  in  the  help  of 
others,  he  can  find  a  strong  coefficient.  By  means  of  co-operation, 
sciences,  arts,  industries,  studies,  &c.,  all  arise,  prosper,  flourish, 
advance.  Leo  XIII.  writes  : — “  The  daily  experience  that  man 
makes  of  the  littleness  of  his  power  engages  and  urges  him  to 
seek  co-operation  with  others.  .  .  .  From  this  natural  pro¬ 
pensity,  as  from  one  germ,  comes  civil  society  ;  then,  from  this 
society,  other  societies,  which,  though  limited  and  imperfect, 
are  not  less  really  societies.”  {Rerum  novarum.)  Even  the 
physical  life  of  the  solitary  man  would  be  so  wretched,  so  miser¬ 
able,  that  it  could  not  be  called  worthy  of  a  rational  creature. 
Man,  in  order  to  live,  must  wage  a  continual  war  against  nature, 
which  does  not  bestow  its  gifts  without  an  expenditure  of  human 
strength.  This  trouble  it  would  often  be  folly  to  expect  from 
the  solitary  man. 

3.  The  need  of  speaking.  I  have  intelligence,  and,  therefore, 
speech.  I  have  need  of  speaking,  and  of  speaking  to  one  who 
understands  me,  and  who  can  give  me  an  answer.  The  most 
painful  punishment  that  can  be  inflicted  on  a  prisoner  is  silence. 
So  much  does  man  feel  this  need  that,  not  content  with  the  words 
of  his  brethren,  he  makes  the  animals,  the  plants,  the  stars,  all 
things  in  creation,  speak. 

4.  The  principles  of  social  morals  rooted  in  the  heart  of  man. 
Let  two  men  meet  for  the  first  time  in  a  lonely  region.  They 
become  companions  on  the  road ;  and,  having  discussed  how 
they  can  best  reach  the  end  of  their  journey,  they  agree  to  help 
each  other.  Suppose  that  afterwards  one  of  them  deceives 
the  other.  The  latter  will  protest  against  the  violation  of  a 
moral  law — namely,  that  which  intelligent  beings  ought  to 
observe  in  society. 

5.  The  fact  that  at  certain  periods  of  childhood  and  old  age, 
and  in  other  circumstances — for  example,  in  sickness — the  life 
of  the  solitary  man  would  be  impossible. 

These  five  elements  of  sociability,  which  we  find  in  every  man, 
no  man  can  have  put  there,  but  only  the  Author  of  man,  God 
Himself.  Therefore,  the  efficient  cause  of  human  society  is 
God. 

Leo  XIII.  wrote  in  the  encyclical  Immortale  Dei  : — “  It  is 
natural  to  man  that  he  should  five  in  civil  society.”  Man  has, 
therefore,  a  sociable  nature  :  to  deny  it  is  to  destroy  society. 
Hitherto  we  have  been  led  by  the  voice  of  God,  speaking  through 
His  creature.  But  it  is  not  enough.  Another  word,  whoever 
can  understand  it,  God  spoke  in  favour  of  the  social  state  of  man — 
it  is  the  dominant  note  in  the  harmony  of  positive  revelation. 
The  object  of  Jesus  Christ  in  becoming  man  was  to  lead  men  to 
eternal  salvation.  It  is  an  indispensable  condition,  established 
by  Him,  for  attaining  this  end,  to  live  in  society — in  that  society 
which  is  the  Catholic  Church. 


SOCIAL  DUTIES  AND  RIGHTS 


5 


Section  IV. — The  Social  Compact. 

To  our  question,  “  What  is  the  efficient  cause  of  society  ?  ” 
others,  not  making  account  of  the  lessons  that  we  have  taught, 
answered  that  it  was  the  will  of  man,  which,  by  a  social  compact, 
gave  rise  to  society. 

Hobbes  and  Rousseau  are  recognised  as  the  founders  of  this 
frightful  philosophy,  which  has  served  too  much  as  a  basis  for 
all  the  revolutionists  who  have  troubled  the  world  in  these  latter 
days. 

There  is  some  difference  between  the  two,  and  it  consists  in 
defining  the  state  of  men  before  the  famous  compact,  Hobbes 
saying  that  it  was  one  of  war  and  Rousseau  one  of  peace.  If 
the  former  shows  us  every  man  struggling  against  his  brethren 
for  his  own  happiness,  the  latter  paints  every  man  jogging  along 
happy  and  content,  and  singing  songs  by  the  light  of  the  moon. 

Against  these  fantastic  notions,  the  arguments  are  too  obvious. 
Suffice  it  to  observe  that  such  notions  do  not  settle  the  question. 
If  the  makers  of  the  social  compact  were  men,  they  were  induced 
to  make  it  by  some  impelling  force  :  this  force  was  the  true 
efficient  cause.  What  was  it  ?  * 


Section  V. — Social  Duties  and  Rights. 

The  body  of  every  living  being  is  essentially  an  organism. 
It  consists  of  parts,  every  one  of  which  is  the  principle  of  some 
operation,  exercising  itself  as  occasion  requires,  not  merely  for 
its  own  benefit,  but  for  that  of  the  compound,  and  therefore 
for  that  of  each  particular  part.  Thus  there  is  one  being,  whose 
unity  consists  in  the  principle  that  animates  the  different  parts 
and  enables  them  to  be  mutually  useful. 

That -society  may  attain  its  proper  scope  it  must  be  alive, 
I  mean  living  that  life  by  which  the  various  members  composing 
it,  and  animated  by  the  same  principle,  may  become  useful  to 
one  another. 

For  this  it  is  necessary  that  the  component  parts  of  society 
should  have  a  reciprocal  influence  by  which  they  may  give  to 
one  another  the  benefit  of  their  activity.  Now,  mark  well. 
If  this  influence,  with  which  man  acts  for  himself  and  for  others, 
is  the  dictate  of  his  own  intelligence,  is  the  recommendation 
of  one  or  more  men,  we  cannot  speak  of  duties,  except  in  the 

*  The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  what  the  author  has  already  explained. 
There  are  in  man  five  elements  of  sociability.  These  tendencies  towards 
society  could  come  only  from  God,  just  as  gravity  in  a  stone  is  placed  there  by 
Him,  and  therefore  God,  the  Author  of  these  tendencies,  or,  in  other  words, 
the  impelling  force,  is  the  efficient  cause  of  human  society.  The  subject 
is  again  referred  to  in  the  following  section. — Trans. 


6 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


sense  of  fidelity  to  promises  made  or  obligations  imposed.  But 
if  it  is  an  effect  of  nature — that  is,  if  it  follows  from  the  nature  of 
man — then  it  is  a  natural  duty  imposed  on  man  by  his  Author. 

Now  that  it  is  this  latter  thing  we,  who  have  shown  the 
efficient  cause  of  society  to  be  God,  cannot  doubt.  Wherefore, 
we  assert,  without  further  discussion,  the  existence  of  natural 
social  duties  in  man. 

But  from  one  root  spring  both  duties  and  rights.  Called 
to  a  special  mission,  the  creature  has  a  duty  to  fulfil.  At  the 
same  time  it  has  the  right  belonging  thereto.  This  is  evident. 

Accordingly,  there  is  no  doubt  that  if  man  has  social  duties 
he  has  also  social  rights,  and  natural  rights — that  is,  rights 
pertaining  to  him  because  he  is  a  man,  not  because  he  is  a  citizen 
of  this  or  that  country — pertaining,  therefore,  to  every  man, 
let  it  be  well  known. 

Yes,  man,  every  man  has  a  right  to  raise  his  head  in  the  social 
assembly  and  to  ask  for  himself  a  certain  quantity  of  goods. 

Society  is  intended  to  strengthen  the  weakness  of  the  individual. 
This  is  realised  in  a  twofold  order  : — (i.)  In  the  case  of  an  attack 
on  individual  rights,  or  on  the  goods,  natural  or  acquired,  by 
which  an  individual  is  rich  ;  and  (ii.)  in  the  insufficiency  of 
individual  powers  for  the  realisation  of  bold  aspirations,  to 
which  the  mind,  naturally  daring,  of  the  individual  is  urged. 

Help  for  this  individual  weakness  is  an  essential  task  of  society. 
It  is  the  advantage  that  the  individual  has  a  right  to  promise 
himself. 

There  are  therefore  negative  goods,  consisting  in  the  removal 
of  obstacles  to  the  development  of  individual  potentialities, 
and  positive  goods,  raising  the  efficacy  of  personal  powers  to 
a  higher  degree,  which  the  individual  has  a  right  to  expect  from 
society.  Otherwise,  the  reason  for  social  life  would  be  wanting. 
Nature  would  either  have  stifled  the  aspirations  of  his  soul, 
or  have  given  him  other  means  for  attaining  them. 

Section  VI. — Life  and  Social  Goods  ;  Public  Goods  and 
Common  Goods  ;  Scope  of  Society. 

There  is  often  mention  of  social  life  and  death,  of  social  goods 
and  evils  :  it  is  necessary  to  know  the  value  of  these  words. 

When  is  it  that  society  can  be  and  ought  to  be  called  living  ? 

Life  is  referred  metaphorically  to  the  social  body.  The  idea 
that  we  have  of  animal  life  we  transfer  to  society,  in  which,  if 
well-ordered,  we  find  a  real  foundation  of  analogy. 

That  animal  we  call  living,  in  which  the  body  and  soul  are 
united  in  such  a  manner  that  they  form  one  single  being,  capable 
of  working  for  the  attainment  of  the  end  adapted  to  it. 

Men  in  society  are  like  a  body  animated  by  a  soul.  The  con¬ 
sciousness  of  social  duties  is  the  principle  that  keeps  them  united, 


LIFE  AND  SOCIAL  GOODS 


7 


and  makes  them  work  for  an  end,  which  is  not  that  of  private 
individuals,  but  of  society  in  general.  This  principle  is  the  soul. 
We  shall,  therefore,  call  living  that  society  in  which  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  social  duties  is  awake  and  active,  leading  men  to 
work  for  the  attainment  of  social  goods. 

But  what  is  meant  by  social  goods  ? 

Consider  well  that  society  is  a  moral  body  ;  and  a  moral  body 
is  never  an  end  to  itself.  Therefore,  it  of  itself  is  incapable 
of  the  enjoyment  of  any  good  :  it  exists  by  its  component  parts, 
and  that  good  which  individuals  draw  from  the  existence  of  society 
is  called  the  good  of  the  moral  body.  Social  goods  are,  therefore, 
those  advantages  which  accrue  to  men  from  living  in  society. 
Those  advantages,  as  everyone  sees,  cannot  be  opposed  to 
the  individual  good,  nor  can  they  be  of  a  nature  different  from 
that  good ;  on  the  contrary,  they  are  its  perfection  and  its 
crown. 

Hence,  social  goods  are  the  comforts  and  conveniences  of 
living,  the  easier  fulfilment  of  one’s  duties,  the  more  effectual 
defence  of  one’s  rights,  &c. — things  which,  for  man  when  alone, 
it  would  be  impossible  or  very  difficult  to  secure.  The  Pope 
writes  : — “  It  is  necessary  that  civil  society,  being  ordained  for 
the  common  good,  should  promote  the  public  prosperity  in  such 
a  manner  that  the  citizens,  while  advancing  to  the  possession 
of  that  supreme  and  unchangeable  good  to  which  they  tend  by 
nature,  may  not  only  meet  no  obstacles,  but  may  have  every 
possible  facility  for  attaining  it.” 

If,  in  society,  this  facility  is  wanting  to  individuals  for  the  attain¬ 
ment  of  their  proper  end,  or,  worse,  if  there  are  impediments 
to  it,  then,  instead  of  social  goods,  there  are  evils.  Individuals 
can  no  longer  turn  to  account  their  being  in  society.  Everyone 
will  belong  to  society  materially,  but  not  formally.  Everyone 
will  give  as  little  as  possible  to  society,  from  which  he  expects 
no  return  of  any  kind.  The  consciousness  of  social  duties  will 
give  place  to  selfishness,  which  is  capable  of  dragging  the  citizens 
into  revolution,  slaughter,  civil  war.  Such  is  the  condition  of 
a  sick  society,  near  to  death. 

We  quoted  lately  the  words  of  the  Holy  Father  in  which  he 
says  that  society  is  ordained  for  the  common  good.  Our  idea 
of  the  common  good  should  be  clear,  so  that  it  may  not  be  con¬ 
founded  with  that  of  the  public  good,  which  is  quite  a  different 
thing. 

Well,  what  is  the  common  good  ?  Perhaps  a  good  that  is 
opposed  to,  or  naturally  differs  from,  private  and  individual 
good  ?  Let  us  reflect.  The  simplest,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  most  philosophical,  definition  of  good  for  man  is  this  : — The 
last  end  is  an  absolute  good,  and  a  relative  good  is  all  that  which 
can  serve  as  a  means  for  the  attainment  of  this  last  end. 

A  good,  not  here  included,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  true  good. 


8 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


God  has  created  many  goods  for  man,  but  these  are  goods  only 
in  so  far  as  they  help  to  gain  the  last  end. 

Everything  in  man  has  been  ordained  by  the  Almighty  for  the 
securing  of  this  last  end.  Hence,  even  his  sociability.  Being 
animated  by  the  desire  of  reaching  that  end,  he  ought  to  procure 
many  goods  for  his  associates,  which  may  all  be  means  of  arriving 
at  the  last  end. 

Accordingly,  the  common  good  is  that  sum  total  of  advantages 
which,  by  reason  of  being  found  in  society,  concerns  all  those 
who  belong  to  society. 

The  public  good  is  a  thing  very  different  from  the  common 
good.  The  common  affects  us  one  by  one ;  the  public,  all 
together.  There  is  common  wellbeing  when  all  are  at  their 
ease ;  there  is  public,  when  the  moral  body,  to  which  each  one 
belongs,  stands  well.  Under  the  sway  of  the  sword,  though, 
oppressive,  there  will  be  public  good,  not  common  good ;  no, 
if  the  innocent  are  often  punished. 

So  much  being  settled,  and  placed  in  connection  with  what 
we  have  explained  regarding  the  true  notion  of  society,  we  can 
easily  infer  that  the  scope  of  human  society  is,  not  the  public 
good,  but  the  common  good.  Bosmini,  in  his  Filosofia  del 
Diritto,  having  examined  this  matter,  concludes  thus,  and 
wisely : — “  Therefore,  civil  society,  having  been  instituted  to 
protect  and  improve  all  the  rights  of  its  members,  acts  against 
its  natural  office,  against  the  office  for  which  alone  it  exists, 
if  it  injures,  instead  of  helping,  a  single  one  of  its  associates, 
even  though  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  others ;  if  it  proposes  to 
obtain  the  good  of  some,  be  they  most  wealthy  or  most  powerful, 
and  not  that  of  all ;  if,  in  a  word,  it  is  content  to  promote  the 
so-called  public  good,  instead  of  the  common  good.”  3  Accord¬ 
ingly,  that  ordinance  which,  howsoever,  succeeds  in  impoverishing 
one  class  for  the  benefit  of  another  is  antisocial,  much  as  it  may 
appear  to  do  good  or  to  accomplish  some  excellent  work.  Society 
there  is  sick,  because  it  does  not  attain  to  the  common  good. 

This  common  good,  which  is  the  object  of  civil  society,  takes 
also  the  name  of  civilisation,  about  the  meaning  of  which  there 
is  a  great  want  of  precision.  Some  suppose  that  civilisation 
consists  in  an  abundance  of  material  goods,  in  splendour  of 
buildings,  &c.  We  do  not  deny  that  these  are  goods  :  we  say, 
and  we  maintain,  that  the  civilisation  of  a  people  cannot  consist 
in  these  things  alone,  because  they  do  not  correspond  to  all  the 
wants  of  man,  they  do  not  represent  all  the  goods  that  man 
requires  for  the  attainment  of  his  last  end.  In  our  view,  those 
people  are  more  civilised  who  by  their  social  state  are  in  a  better 
position  to  raise  their  citizens  towards  their  last  end.  Any¬ 
thing  whatever  that  proves  an  obstacle  or  an  impediment  to 
this  mission  of  individuals — although  it  may  be  a  good  in  itself — 
is  for  the  individuals  an  evil.  And  to  call  civilised  a  society 
whose  existence,  whose  composition,  turns  to  the  direct  prejudice 


LIFE  AND  SOCIAL  GOODS 


9 


even  of  a  few  of  those  who  form  part  of  it,  is  a  strange  contradic¬ 
tion.  Let  the  words  that  we  borrow  from  Weiss  (La  Questione 
Sociale,  p.  394)  be  read  : — 

“  The  entire  modern  school  thus  answers  our  question  :  The 
final  scope  of  social  life  is  the  increase  of  the  public  wellbeing. 
Thereby  the  fate  of  our  fellowship  is  sealed.  This  unfortunate 
theory  is  one  of  the  most  dangerous  equivocations,  often  per¬ 
chance  a  deliberate  deception.  No  one  any  longer  speaks  of 
individual  members  of  the  community,  but  only  of  social  wealth. 
The  wants  and  capabilities  of  each  particular  person  are,  on 
principle,  laid  aside  ;  on  the  other  hapd,  much  more  attention 
is  bestowed  on  the  dead  matter  from  which  the  totality  of 
citizens  comes  forth.  The  magnificent  idea  of  Christianity, 
that  society  is  a  great  organism,  wherein  every  single  member 
holds  the  place  assigned  him  and  has  to  make  his  own 
endeavour  for  the  advantage  of  all — wherein,  however,  society 
should  provide  for  every  member — is  thus  brought  down  to 
nothing.  Limits  for  the  protection  of  the  individual,  gradation 
of  classes,  co-ordination  among  all,  are  neglected.  The  cold 
penny  is  the  only  rule.  The  greatest  amount  of  production 
possible,  accumulations  of  the  highest  value,  are  the  ultimate 
scope.  Wealth  without  obligation ;  no  relative  possession, 
nor  even  a  good  footing,  for  the  individual :  these  are  the  springs 
of  our  social  life.  Where  once  the  wellbeing  of  a  state  was  cal¬ 
culated  by  the  number  of  those  who,  at  their  own  expense,  could 
take  the  field  for  it  and  form  an  army,  to-day  it  is  calculated 
by  the  sum  expended  on  barracks,  on  fortresses,  and  on  war 
material.  If  one  State  has  millions  of  money  more  than  another, 
by  that  alone  it  passes  for  the  more  fortunate.  Who  owns 
the  millions,  or  who  is  the  better  of  them,  it  is  no  matter.  Enough 
that  they  he  dead  in  the  war-chest,  or  are  in  the  hands  of  a  few 
nabobs,  while  just  near  them  are  thousands  and  thousands  of 
poor  people  in  a  constant  struggle  for  existence.” 

Here,-  in  passing,  let  it  be  noted  how  much  the  principles 
of  Christianity  promote  the  work  of  civilisation  in  society. 
Christianity  has  awakened  the  consciousness  of  social  duties, 
bringing  forward  the  great  precept  of  charity,  which  is  reduced 
to  this  : — “  Eemember  that  you  are  not  alone  in  the  world, 
but  there  is  someone  else  who  has  a  right  to  be  there  as  well 
as  you.  Nor  is  that  enough.  You  ought  also  to  help  him 
who  is  a  brother  to  you,  that  he  may  attain  to  his  proper  end. 
In  helping  him  you  ought  to  regard  him  as  another  self.”  What 
admirable  doctrine ! 

The  sociology  of  philosophers  ought  to  produce  volumes 
demonstrating  that  there  is  by  no  means  a  contradiction  between 
attending  to  one’s  own  happiness  and  attending  to  social  duties, 
and  then  wait  to  have  them  understood,  because  he  who  reads 
and  meditates  little  cannot  well  see  how  society  is  like  a  beneficent 
machine,  which  makes  a  superabundant  return  to  the  individual 


10 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


for  all  that  lie  gives  to  others.  Jesus  Christ  has  explained  it 
in  a  few  words  :  Love  thy  neighbour  a s  thyself.  How  happy 
would  society  be  if  all  men  attended  to  Him  ! 

To  prevent  the  rich  from  abusing  their  position,  to  the  injury 
of  the  poor,  Christianity  sets  forth  the  vanity  of  riches,  and 
calls  the  state  of  the  rich  a  dangerous  one.  Now,  why  so,  if 
not  because  the  rich  are  in  danger  of  giving  to  themselves  what 
they  owe  to  others  ? 

A  contempt  of  present  things,  which  is  preached  by  the  Gospel 
and  which  some  persons  call  an  obstacle  to  the  civil  progress  of 
society,  becomes  of  great  efficacy  in  the  work  of  a  perfect  civilisa¬ 
tion,  a  civilisation  true  and  not  ruinous. 

We  saw  how  false  a  civilisation  is  that  which  gives  excessive 
importance  to  material  goods.  Well,  the  contempt  of  the  Gospel 
is  relative — that  is,  it  falls  on  a  defective  civilisation,  which 
apparently  is  perfect,  but  in  reality  is  despicable.  And  thus  we 
explain  the  words,  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit :  a  divine  maxim 
by  which  Jesus  Christ  gave  the  great  lesson  that  poverty  can  be 
a  virtue,  and  that  as  a  virtue  it  is  commanded  for  the  good  of 
oneself  and  others.  The  virtue  poverty  is  a  right  appreciation 
that  the  Christian  mind,  in  whatever  circumstances  placed, 
makes  of  the  goods  that  surround  it  or  that  it  possesses.  As 
worldly  goods  have  the  same  destiny  for  all  men — that  is,  to  serve 
them  in  reaching  an  end  that  is  the  same  for  all — this  appreciation 
ought  to  be  alike  for  all.  To  rise  to  such  an  idea  of  things  in 
theory  and  practice  is  the  perfection  of  the  soul,  because  it  is  a 
victory  over  their  seductive  powers.  It  is  a  good  for  civil  society, 
because  man  makes  his  fellowmen  the  object  of  his  beneficence. 

The  Church,  continuing  the  work  of  Jesus  Christ,  animated 
by  the  spirit  of  His  gentle  doctrines,  must,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
exercise  a  pre-eminently  civilising  influence  on  the  world. 

History,  if  any  one  consults  it  dispassionately,  offers  some 
splendid  pages  on  this  subject,  and  proves  to  the  Christian 
philosopher  the  truth  of  Toniolo’s  words,  that  civilisation  is  only 
the  history  of  man’s  union  with  God.  “  Not  because,”  says  Cardinal 
Parrochi,  in  his  letter  to  Toniolo,  “  civilisation  in  itself  should  be 
confounded  with  religion,  but  because  there  is  no  true  and  com¬ 
plete  civilisation  unless  it  is  Christian,  and  Christian  civilisation  is 
founded  on  supernatural  principles.” 


Section  VII. — Social  Functions  ;  Social  Organism. 

The  human  individual  lives  above  himself  and  above  the 
external  world.  He  is  a  providential  instrument,  an  enlightened 
artificer,  who  transforms  things  around  him  into  useful  articles 
for  himself.  This  is  the  work  of  each  individual. 

The  activity,  however,  of  each  individual  is  in  some  respects 
exuberant,  and  in  others  defective.  Should  he  enter  into  relations 


SOCIAL  ORGANISATIONS 


11 


of  activity  with  his  own  brother,  he  separates  from  him  if  both 
do  not  gain.  Such  is  social  life,  which  is  the  result  of  separate 
energies  struggling  in  the  body  with  a  two-fold  effect,  one  for 
the  good  of  the  individual  himself,  the  other  in  favour  of  the 
brethren  with  whom  he  lives. 

But  it  is  easily  observed  that  the  strength  of  each  individual 
is  too  little  to  be  felt  in  all  the  social  body.  A  little  stream  that 
leaves  its  banks  does  not  ruffle  the  surface  of  the  sea  ;  a  big  wave 
runs  a  long  way. 

Individual  social  duties  fulfilled  are  small  energies,  of  them¬ 
selves  not  felt.  What  could  one  tradesman  alone,  or  one  pro¬ 
fessional  man  alone,  do  for  the  common  weal  ?  It  is  necessary 
that  there  should  be  many  individuals  following  the  same  trade 
or  the  same  profession.  There  is  then  strong  suitable  action, 
which  deserves  the  name  of  a  social  function. 

Turning  now  to  the  subject  of  each  social  function,  we  find  that 
it  requires  many  individuals  having  a  community  of  interests, 
elements  that  stand  upon  the  same  basis.  This  basis  gives  them 
a  special  unity,  by  which  they  are  rightly  called  classes,  and, 
taking  account  of  the  functions  that  they  fulfil,  social  organs. 

Behold  why  and  how  it  ought  to  be  said  that  human  society 
is  an  organism — that  is,  a  body  resulting  from  organic  parts,  like 
an  animal  body. 

Materialistic  sociology  opposes  the  individual  theory  to  this 
idea  of  a  society  founded  on  the  theory  of  social  duties. 

It  was  Descartes,  we  may  say,  who  did  the  honours  of  the  house 
to  atomism,  and  introduced  it  to  philosophy.  Materialism 
took  occasion  from  it  to  put  on  the  philosopher’s  cloak  and  appear 
less  beastly.  Thus,  man  was  defined  as  a  quantity  of  atoms, 
forming  a  person. 

If  the  individual  is  such,  why  not  society  ? 

So  liberalism  begins  to  generalise,  and  imagines  society  as  a 
number  of  individuals  scattered  over  the  earth  and  forming  a 
certain  -  unitv. 

Materialism,  to  preserve  a  human  combination,  recognises 
only  the  force  of  cohesion,  which  binds  the  atoms  together. 
Liberalism,  to  unite  individuals  in  society,  recognises  an  agree¬ 
ment  made  by  them  to  keep  together.  Thus,  not  a  superior 
principle,  not  an  eternal  law,  not  a  duty,  but  a  human  compact 
would  be  the  origin  of  society. 


Section  YIII. — Social  Organisations  ;  Business  Unions. 

Society,  we  said,  should  be  an  organism. 

Nature  itself  tells  us  what  should  be  its  chief  organs — namely, 
social  classes. 

These,  however,  should  exist  not  only  in  the  design  of  nature, 
but  also  in  reality.  If  the  individuals,  though  having  common 


12 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


interests,  are  not  enfeoffed,  are  not  recognised,  they  will  always 
be  individuals,  similar  atoms,  but  they  will  not  be  classes.  And 
the  society  that  is  thus  composed  will  be  a  disorganised  society — 
a  society  of  individuals,  not  of  classes. 

Disorganised  society  is  a  body  consisting  of  movable  elements 
without  any  common  centre  of  gravity.  Everyone,  being  left  to 
his  own  centripetal  force,  makes  himself  the  centre  of  his  activity. 
In  this  state  of  affairs  it  is  natural  that  the  elements  of  stronger 
wing  should  fly  upwards  and  the  weak  fall  to  the  ground. 

Nowadays  we  have  exactly  this  kind  of  disorganised  society. 
There  is  a  society,  but,  being  without  organs,  it  cannot  be  healthy 
and  vigorous.  It  must  be  languid,  almost  dead.  We  have  been 
brought  to  these  extremes  by  a  variety  of  causes. 

To  relieve  this  poor  sick  society  there  is  only  one  remedy, 
the  reconstruction  of  society,  having  as  a  basis  the  principles 
of  the  natural  law  and  of  the  Gospel. 

Following  the  indications  of  nature,  we  wish  for  organisation 
according  to  business,  that  is — we  do  not  wish  to  have  arbitrary 
criterions  in  giving  life  to  different  classes,  but  to  follow  nature, 
which,  having  arranged  that  social  good  may  be  obtained  by 
means  of  different  trades  or  different  professions,  to  which  many 
individuals  belong,  has  also  shown  us  clearly  that  among 
individuals  of  the  same  occupation,  the  class,  or  active  organ 
of  the  social  body,  may  be  and  ought  to  be  formed. 

Can  it  be  formed  :  We  shall  say  rather  that  nature  itself 
has  formed  the  social  classes,  placing  groups  of  individuals  in 
different  positions.  Only  a  violent  process  adopted  against 
the  ordinance  of  nature,  wrecking  individuals  and  associations, 
has  been  able  to  destroy  the  classes  and  disorganise  society. 

And  this  is  so  true  that,  the  classes  being  destroyed,  society 
was  led  to  reconstitute  itself  in  other  classes ;  and  to-day  we 
see  it  divided  into  two  classes — the  grabbers  and  the  beggars, 
the  strong  and  the  weak,  the  capitalists  and  the  proletaires. 

Here  we  have  a  classification  against  nature,  one  that  therefore 
cannot  last.  And  to-day  we  see  a  reaction  of  the  social  elements 
against  such  an  organisation.  We  see  these  elements  swimming 
in  the  sea  of  life,  searching  for  one  another,  striving  to  form 
groups  according  to  the  qualities  of  their  homogeneity,  according 
to  the  designs  of  nature. 

Hence  it  is  easy  to  understand  what  are  the  unions  that  we 
propose,  and  what  their  task.  They  may  be  defined  associations 
of  individuals  having  the  same  occupation,  with  a  view  to  the 
defence  of  their  rights  and  the  promotion  of  their  interests. 

Unions  do  not  tend  to  eliminate  the  individual  or  the  family — 
no,  these  remain  unchanged.  They  tend  to  make  individuals 
as  well  as  families  strong,  able  to  resist  external  attacks  and  to 
increase  their  own  prosperity.  Alone,  the  individual  and  the 
family  count  for  what  they  are  ;  organised  in  classes,  each  one 
is  of  as  much  value  as  his  class.  The  task,  therefore,  of  unions 


SOCIAL  ORGANISATIONS 


13 


is  great,  comprising  all  the  rights,  all  the  interests,  all  the  just 
aspirations  of  their  members. 

This  task  is  usually  expressed  by  saying  that  the  unions  ought 
to  represent  the  classes  :  an  expression  that  deserves  to  be  weighed 
for  what  it  is  worth,  and  it  is  worth  very  much.  It  means  that 
the  union  ought  to  come  forward  and  place  itself  in  the  position 
of  the  individual  associated  to  it  every  time  that  his  welfare  is 
in  question. 

To  regard  trade  or  professional  unions  as  having  in  view  only 
the  material  welfare  of  their  members  is  to  brutalise  man.  Man 
is  composed  of  soul  and  body,  and,  wh§n  he  joins  his  class,  none 
of  its  interests,  which  are  connected  and  inseparable,  can  be  left 
outside  the  door.  Now,  we  know  that  man  has  religious,  moral, 
economical,  and  civil  interests.  The  union  ought  to  help  him  in 
securing  all  these  interests.  For  this  reason  the  union  will  lead 
to  confraternities,  to  rural  chests,*  to  co-operative  societies, 
to  electoral  committees,  &c.  Thus  did  Professor  Toniolo  describe 
the  union  at  the  National  Congress  of  Rome.  “  Its  aims,”  he 
said,  “  are  not  directly  lucrative.  It  certainly  intends  to  give 
an  organic  autonomous  unity  to  a  class,  and  as  such,  to  set  forth 
its  interests  before  other  classes  and  before  the  public  powers, 
to  defend  its  rights,  and  to  promote  its  religious,  social,  civil, 
and  material  wellbeing.” 

The  encyclical  Rerum  novarum  has  some  explicit  teaching 
with  regard  to  organisation.  The  Pope,  having  recalled  the  merits 
of  the  ancient  trade  and  art  corporations,  wishes  them  to  be 
re-established,  not  indeed  such  as  they  were  in  olden  days, 
because  too  great  a  part  of  the  world  is  changed,  but  wisely  adapted 
to  the  conditions  and  wants  of  the  present  day.  Behold  how  he 
speaks : — “  The  advantages  of  such  corporations  were  most 
evident  to  our  ancestors  ;  and  not  only  for  the  benefit  of  artisans, 
but,  as  many  monuments  attest,  for  the  honour  and  perfection 
of  the  arts  themselves.  Assuredly,  the  progress  of  culture,  the 
new  customs,  and  the  increasing  wants  of  life  require  that  these 
corporations  should  adapt  themselves  to  present  conditions.  We 
see  with  pleasure  such  associations  being  everywhere  formed, 
either  of  workmen  alone,  or  of  workmen  and  masters ;  and  it  is 
desirable  that  their  number  and  their  efficiency  should  increase.” 

The  old  corporations  or  guilds  have  been  renovated  and 
modernised  by  the  counsels  of  the  wise  in  the  unions  of  which 
we  have  been  speaking.  | 

*  “  Rural  Chest  ”  is  a  name  given  in  Italy  to  a  kind  of  village  bank. — 
Trans. 

f  “  The  guildsmen  were  taught  to  look  upon  work  as  a  sacred  trust,  a 
holy  function,  the  complement  of  prayer,  and  the  foundation  of  a  virtuous 
life.  Before  their  eyes  were  the  luminous  examples  of  those  blessed  toilers, 
the  saints  of  God,  whom  they  represented  with  the  implements  of  the 
various  trades;  thus  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  was  represented  as  busy  at 
the  spinning-wheel,  and  her  holy  spouse,  St.  Joseph,  with  hammer  and  saw. 


14 


THE  ELEMENTS  OE  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


That  these  guilds,  therefore,  are  desired  by  Leo  XIII.,  if  not  in 
word,  certainly  in  substance,  may  be  gathered  from  other  points 
in  the  encyclical ;  for  instance,  where  he  speaks  of  the  necessity 
of  placing  limits  to  the  hours  of  labour,  if  he  assigns  to  the  State 
the  task  of  fixing  the  maximum  number,  he  wishes,  however, 
that  the  associations  should  be  trusted  to  decide  on  the  normal 
length  of  a  day’s  work. 

From  what  has  been  said,  this  subject  of  organisation  appears 
so  important  that  it  may  be  called  the  basis  of  a  sociology  really 
democratic  or  civil.  Toniolo  says  : — “  There  is  no  Catholic  social 
programme  of  any  country  that  has  not  inserted  as  one  of  its 
fundamental  articles  the  reconstitution  of  society  by  means  of 
classes,  and,  therefore,  by  thus  organising  the  classes  of  the 
people,  does  not  perform  the  work  of  a  true  Christian  democracy  ; 
and  that,  in  fine,  by  thus  providing  for  the  lower  classes  as  well  as 
the  upper  hierarchy  does  not  contribute  to  the  integral  recon¬ 
struction  of  Catholic  social  order.” 

From  the  theory  just  set  forth  we  draw,  as  so  many  corollaries, 
the  following  conclusions  : — 

1.  Society  fives  according  to  nature  when  men  not  only  have  an 
active  consciousness  of  their  social  duties,  but  are  also  able  to  make 
their  rights  respected,  which  is  the  result  of  organisation. 

2.  It  being  an  ordinance  of  nature  that  various  classes  of  men, 
called  social  classes,  should  exist,  and  society  being  intended 
for  the  good  of  men,  it  is  naturally  the  will  of  the  Author  of  society 
that  the  various  classes,  not  merely  one  or  two,  should  share  in 
the  goods,  the  social  goods,  that  society  produces. 

3.  If  account  is  made  of  the  end  for  which  the  various  classes 
are  instituted,  which  is  the  common  good,  it  is  natural  that  we 
should  not  speak  of  lower  or  higher  classes,  all  being  equally 
necessary  to  attain  the  object  for  which  society  exists.  If,  how¬ 
ever,  regard  is  paid  to  relative  functions,  then  the  superiority 
or  the  inferiority  of  the  classes  arises  from  the  kind  of  functions 
that  they  fulfil.  By  the  Pope,  the  various  classes  are  called  the 
necessary  members  of  a  well- constituted  society.  As  in  the  human 
body,  there  are  members  higher  or  lower,  stronger  or  weaker, 
but  all  necessary  for  fife,  and  therefore,  by  the  title  of  necessity, 
all  equal  among  themselves,  so  it  is  in  the  social  body.* 

As  every  member  of  the  guild  had  to  be  of  legitimate  birth,  and  of  an  un¬ 
blemished  and  spotless  reputation,  so  his  work  was  to  be  solid  and  faultless 
as  the  manifestation  of  his  character.  Sham  and  deceit  were  universally 
despised,  and  legal  penalties  were  inflicted  on  work  of  inferior  quality. 
To  prevent  fraud  and  deception,  all  trades  were  under  the  close  inspection 
of  the  guild- warders  and  local  authorities.” — From  Socialism  and 
Christianity,  a  very  excellent  work  by  the  late  Dr.  Stang,  Catholic  Bishop  of 
Fall  River.  New  York  :  Benziger  Brothers. — 'Trans . 

*  “  The  shameless  confiscation  of  the  entire  property  of  the  craft-guilds, 
one  of  the  worst  kinds  of  wanton  plunder  in  European  history,  perpetrated 
under  Henry  VIII.  and  Edward  VI.  to  fill  the  royal  purse,  brought  untold 
misery  to  the  masses  of  the  working  people.” — History  of  Agriculture,  by 


SOCIAL  ORGANISATIONS 


15 


4.  Two  things  are  certain — namely,  it  is  the  intention  of  nature 
that  higher  and  lower  classes  should  exist  in  society,  and  it  is  also 
the  wish  of  nature  that  all  classes  should  share  in  the  benefits 
of  society.  A  third  conclusion  follows  logically :  that  the 
upper  classes  ought  to  converge  to  their  proper  position  of  kindly 
guardianship  for  the  lower  classes.  This,  it  is  understood,  is  the 
will  of  God  Himself.  Let  us  hear  the  words  of  Leo  XIII  : — 
“We  would  wish  that  they  (the  more  respectable  citizens)  should 
consider  that  they  are  not  free  to  care  or  not  for  the  condition 
of  the  lowly,  but  they  are  truly  bound  to  have  such  care.  Because 
the  citizen  does  not  live  only  for  himself,  but  also  for  the  com¬ 
munity:  the  contribution  that  some  cannot  bring  to  the  common 
good,  let  others  bring  with  greater  liberality.  Of  the  gravity 
(. N.B .)  of  the  said  duty,  they  are  warned  by  the  superiority  of 
the  goods  received,  for  which  they  will  undoubtedly  have  to  render 
a  more  strict  account  to  that  God  who  gave  them.”  ( Graves  de 
eommuni  re.) 

5.  The  existence  of  various  social  classes  being  a  necessity, 
in  consequence  of  the  common  good,  a  just  idea  of  their  rights 
and  duties  ought  to  be  formed  by  taking,  as  a  rule,  this  reason  of 
their  existence.  Accordingly,  the  idea  is  altogether  unwarrant¬ 
able  that  is  entertained  of  the  upper  classes  by  many  liberals, 
who  regard  their  rank  as  one  granted  only  for  the  benefit  of  those 
who  belong  to  it — a  position  of  honour,  of  luxury,  of  display, 
of  ease,  of  fine  times,  &c.  It  is  nothing  of  the  sort.  In  our  view 
the  upper  classes  have,  together  with  many  rights,  many  and  most 
serious  duties,  which  are  the  reason  of  their  existence.  Without 
these,  neither  God  nor  the  world  knows  what  to  make  of  them. 

Seeing  that  so  many  evils  at  present  afflict  society,  the  upper 
classes  have  a  more  grave  obligation  to  come  to  its  relief.  The 
Pope  intended  weighty  words.  Yet — and  it  should  be  noted, 
because  it  is  true — the  practical  life  of  the  privileged  classes 
does  not  correspond  to  the  importance  of  this  duty.  “  The 
aristocrats,”  says  Toniolo,  “  ennobled  by  blood  and  tradition, 
continue  for  the  most  part  to  live  estranged  from  the  debated 
problems  of  society,  ignorant  of  their  high  directive  duty,  heedless 
of  their  immense  responsibility.  By  their  conduct  they  are 
very  often  accomplices  in  that  social  disorder  which  they  ought 
to  prevent  or  to  remedy.”  The  Harmels,  the  De  Muns  in  France, 
the  Decurtiuses  in  Switzerland,  the  Toniolos  and  a  few  others  in 
Italy,  are  exceptions. 

Thorold  Rogers.  Mr.  T.  Smith,  though  making  little  account  of  the  spolia¬ 
tion  of  the  monasteries,  says  of  these  lay  institutions : — “  A  case  of  pure 
wholesale  robbery  and  plunder.  .  .  .  No  page  so  black  in  English  history.” 
English  Guilds  (p.  xiii.),  showing  the  ordinances  of  more  than  a  hundred 
of  them,  and  edited  by  Mr.  Toulmin  Smith  for  the  Early  English  Text 
Society  (1870). 

Confiscation  led  to  poverty  and  theft.  Under  Henry  VIII.  there  were 
72,000  thieves  arrested  and  executed. — Trans. 


16 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


And  the  aristocrats  do  not  hear  the  sound  of  the  coming  storm, 
which  is  ready  to  burst  upon  them,  and  to  announce  to  them 
the  dilemma  of  Toniolo — • Either  change  or  disappear  !  4 


Section  IX. — Ancient  Slavery  and  Modern  Proletairism. 

Society,  as  we  have  shown,  is  a  means  intended  for  the  welfare 
of  all  human  beings,  who,  by  the  will  of  their  Author,  are  called 
to  take  part  in  it. 

When  a  means  is  established  by  nature  for  the  attainment 
of  an  end,  it  ought  to  attain  that  end.  If  not,  it  is  faulty,  not  what 
nature  intended  it  to  be. 

This  does  not  mean  that  every  little  bit  of  straw  should 
absolutely  and  necessarily  reach  the  point  towards  which  it  is 
blown  ;  no,  the  present  state  of  things  admits  of  exceptions. 
These  cannot  be  admitted  if  there  is  a  notable  and  direct  failure 
in  the  attainment  of  the  ends  willed  by  the  Creator,  when  the 
conditions  also  willed  by  Him  are  placed. 

Now,  we  have  here  three  elements  of  which  we  must  take 
account :  the  object  intended  by  the  Creator,  the  subject  for 
whose  benefit  the  object  is  intended,  and  the  means  by  which 
the  object  is  to  be  obtained  for  the  benefit  of  the  subject.  The 
object  is  wellbeing,  not  absolute,  but  relative,  such  as  can  be 
found  here  below.  By  the  subject  we  understand  all  men,  not  the 
most  skilful,  nor  the  most  active,  but  all.  And  the  means  is 
society.  If,  even  in  a  well-ordered  society,  there  cannot  be  had 
all  the  wellbeing  possible  here  below,  let  that  pass ;  that  even 
there  may  be  some  persons  who,  from  manifold  causes,  do  not 
enjoy  the  common  good,  let  that  pass ;  but  that  in  an  orderly- 
society  there  should  be  a  large  number  of  citizens  who  do  not 
enjoy  social  goods,  and,  worse  still,  that  the  social  condition  should 
be  such  as  directly  to  produce  these  misfortunes,  tending  every 
moment  to  increase,  this  cannot  occur  and  ought  not  to  be.  It 
would  be  an  injury  to  the  Author  of  nature. 

These  serious  inconveniences  must  naturally  happen  in  a  dis¬ 
organised  society.  Without  well- constructed  organs,  social 
functions  fail,  and  true  social  life  cannot  exist. 

We  observe  two  periods  of  disorganised  society — ancient  and 
modern.  What  did  they  produce  ? 

The  ancient  produced  slavery. 

It  was  a  social  state  in  which  the  greater  portion  of  mankind 
were  given,  body  and  soul,  into  the  power  of  a  small  minority. 
It  had  no  thought,  no  life,  no  action,  no  personality  of  its  own. 
The  slave  was  a  man  without  rights,  a  man  brought  down  to  zero. 
The  master  had  his  own  rights,  and  those  of  others :  he  was  a 
double  man,  a  triple  man,  a  hundred-fold  man,  according  to  the 
number  of  slaves  that  he  owned.  Society  was  not  a  benefit  for 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION 


17 


the  slaves ;  it  was  rather  a  press,  which  crushed  every  develop¬ 
ment  of  personality. 

All  that  happened  because  the  monsoon  of  selfishness  blew  over 
the  social  body,  seizing  on  and  swelling  up  every  molecule  of  it ; 
some,  becoming  larger,  overwhelmed  and  oppressed  the  smaller 
ones.  In  that  world  the  idea  of  social  duties  could  find  no  place. 
The  social  body  was  held  fast  as  in  iron  fetters. 

Jesus  Christ  came  to  substitute  for  these  fetters  the  sweet  bonds 
of  justice  and  charity.  He  proclaimed  the  natural  equality 
of  men,  and,  to  ensure  respect  for  it,  made  known  that  there 
will  be  a  day  of  general  account  for  all. 

If  men  were  filled  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  there  is  no  doubt 
that  society  would  be  well-constituted,  and  men  would  be  happy. 

To  make  men  grow  continually  stronger  in  the  fulfilment 
of  their  duties,  the  Church,  to  which  was  left  the  task  of  elaborat¬ 
ing,  developing,  and  applying  the  treasures  of  the  Redeemer, 
instituted  corporations,  which  had  so  great  a  share  in  promoting 
the  happiness  of  people  in  the  Middle  Ages.  But  these  barriers 
having  been  broken  down,  and  the  Christian  spirit  driven  from 
hearts  by  a  variety  of  causes,  it  was  natural  that  social  disorder 
should  again  ensue. 

Slavery,  as  such,  can  no  longer  exist  as  of  yore.  Behold, 
however,  proletairism,  which,  coming  under  the  shade  of  the  tree 
of  liberty,  appears  less  horrible ;  but  it  is  slavery,  real  slavery — 
in  some  respects  worse  than  the  ancient. 

As  a  social  disease,  proletairism  is  a  vicious  ordering  of  society, 
in  which  single  energies,  left  in  the  power  of  liberty,  are  turned  by 
selfishness  to  the  benefit  of  the  richer  and  therefore  more  powerful 
classes,  called  the  upper  classes.  The  unfortunate  proletaires 
may  be  compared  to  so  many  particles  of  dust  that  fall  to  the 
ground  and  are  trampled  on  by  the  passers-by.  They  are  a 
various  heterogeneous  multitude,  ever  increasing  in  number. 
Poor  people,  uncertain  of  life  to-morrow ! 

We  have  said  that  in  some  respects  the  state  of  proletairism 
at  the  present  day  is  beneath  that  of  ancient  slavery ;  and  it  is 
true.  In  point  of  fact,  by  the  full  possession  that  the  strong  man 
obtained  of  the  weak  man,  the  former  was  in  a  manner  bound 
to  take  care  of  the  latter,  in  order,  as  is  understood,  to  reap  more 
abundant  fruits  from  him.  To-day  the  possession  is  not  full* 
and  from  this  point  of  view  it  is  worse.  To-day  the  strong  man 
commands.  He  takes  the  fruits  of  the  weak  man ;  he  is  master 
of  them.  But  he  is  not  master  of  the  weak  man’s  life,  the  pros¬ 
perity  or  the  misery  of  which  is  very  little  concern  to  him. 

Section  X. — The  Social  Question. 

The  social  question  looms  up  before  us.  It  is  not  wonderful, 
rather  it  is  A  atural,  that  such  should  exist.  It  is  the  result  of  a 
very  complex  network  of  causes,  which  have  brought  an  abnormal 

B 


18 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


discomfort  to  many  men.  These,  having  acquired  a  conscious¬ 
ness  of  their  misfortunes  and  their  rights,  are  indignant  against 
society  of  the  present  day,  which  they  regard  as  the  cause  of  their 
evils,  and  they  wish  it  to  be  destroyed. 

And  thus  one  thing  comes  in  question — the  living  in  society — 
about  which  there  should  be  no  question,  society  being  an 
ordinance  of  nature. 

He  errs,  and  greatly  errs,  who  believes  that  economic  discomfort 
is  the  only  cause  of  social  discontent.  We  think  that  there  are 
other  causes,  many  other  causes.  The  great  phrase  Not  in  bread 
alone  doth  man  live  belongs  indeed  to  Scripture,  but  it  is  also  a 
strong  cry  of  nature.  Give  men  bread,  bread,  bread,  and  nothing 
but  bread,  and  you  will  soon  see  them  irritated  against  society, 
and  raising  a  revolution  to  destroy  it. 

“  Some  men  boast,  and  make  others  believe,  that  the  so-called 
social  question  is  only  economic ;  whereas,  nothing  can  be  more 
certain  than  that  it  is  chiefly  moral  and  religious,  and  that,  there¬ 
fore,  it  requires  to  be  explained  according  to  moral  and  religious 
laws.  Even  double  the  wages  of  the  workman,  shorten  his  hours 
of  toil,  lower  for  him  the  prices  of  goods ;  yet,  if  you  leave  him 
imbued  with  certain  doctrines,  and  guided  by  certain  examples, 
which  move  him  to  throw  off  respect  for  God  and  to  turn  to  evil 
customs,  your  labour  and  liberality  will  be  lost.  .  .  .  Take 
away  from  minds  those  sentiments  which  are  the  fruits  of  a 
Christian  education ;  take  away  foresight,  moderation,  thrift, 
patience,  and  other  suchlike  moral  virtues,  which  reason  itself 
dictates  to  us,  and  you  will  see  that  every  effort  to  obtain  the 
comforts  of  life  will  fail.  And  this  is  truly  the  cause  why  we 
have  never  exhorted  Catholics  to  found  guilds  and  similar  institu¬ 
tions  for  the  betterment  of  the  people  without  a  recommendation 
at  the  same  time  to  place  them  under  the  auspices  of  religion, 
and  to  encourage  them  by  its  constant  aid.”  (Encyc.,  Graves  de 
communi  re.) 

We,  who  lately  condemned  the  proletairism  of  the  present  day, 
loudly  condemn  the  present  social  constitution  that  produces 
it.  But  we  recognise  with  the  Pope,  and  all  wise  thinkers,  that 
the  tortuous  social  question  is  also — nay,  is  first  of  all — a  moral 
question. 

Roused  by  the  great  Leo  to  the  work  of  social  restoration, 
the  task  before  us  is  extensive  and  eminently  pathological.  It 
is  the  infusion  of  a  new  life,  which  we  ought  to  bring  to  the  present 
social  settlement — of  that  life  which  formed  the  glory  of  bygone 
days,  and  which  ought  to  form  it  still  more  in  the  present  and 
in  the  future,  taking  account  of  the  undeniable  and  consoling 
progress  that  the  world  has  made  in  what  is  called  the  Christian 
life. 

Let  us  again  seal  what  we  have  said  with  the  w^ords  of  the 
encyclical : — “  If  there  is  any  remedy  for  the  evils  of  the  world, 
it  cannot  be  other  than  a  return  to  Christian  life  and  manners. 


CHRISTIAN  DEMOCRACY 


19 


It  is  a  solemn  principle  that,  to  reform  a  society  in  a  state  of  decay, 
it  must  be  brought  back  to  the  principles  that  gave  it  being. 
The  perfection  of  every  society  consists  in  tending  to  and  arriving 
at  its  object :  so  that  the  originating  principle  of  social  movements 
or  actions  is  the  same  that  originated  the  association.  Hence, 
to  deviate  from  the  primitive  scope  is  corruption ;  to  turn  to  it 
is  salvation.  And  as  this  is  true  of  civil  society,  so  it  is  true  of 
the  labouring  classes,  who  form  the  most  numerous  portion 
thereof.” 

Thus,  and  thus  only,  will  the  difficult  question  be  settled. 

•» 

Section  XI. — Christian  Democracy. 

At  this  stage  of  our  studies  we  can  affirm,  by  way  of  a  conclusion, 
that  a  true  social  arrangement  of  society  will  be  attained — 
,(i.)  when  the  different  classes  find  in  society  an  advantage  that 
corresponds  to  all  their  religious,  civil,  and  economical  interests, 
and  (ii.)  when,  therefore,  they  are  so  placed  respectively  in  society, 
and  so  work  together  by  the  exercise  of  social  duties,  that  the 
weaker  classes  have  a  benefit  in  living  with  the  stronger. 

These  are  two  points  which  we  will  not  here  delay  to  illustrate, 
because  this  is  not  a  place  for  dissertations,  and  besides  they  follow 
from  what  has  been  said.  A  happy  use  of  words  gives  to  a  society 
thus  formed  the  name  of  a  Christian  Democracy. 

Let  us  study  for  a  while  the  definition  that  Toniolo  gives  of 
Christian  Democracy,  and  we  shall  find  these  two  points  confirmed. 
The  great  sociologist  defines  it  as  “  that  civil  ordinance  in  which 
all  the  social,  legal,  and  economical  forces,  in  the  fulness  of  their 
development,  co-operate  proportionally  to  the  common  good, 
turning  chiefly  to  the  advantage  of  the  lower  classes.” 

Here  we  see  affirmed  the  respective  location  of  the  various 
classes  in  the  social  body,  their  co-operation  for  the  common 
good  by  the  exercise  of  their  different  social  functions,  and  the 
principal  advantage  being  in  favour  of  the  lower  classes  :  such 
ought  to  be  the  results  of  a  well-ordered  society. 

Let  not  the  last  specification  of  the  social  end  seem  to  you 
a  restriction  on  the  common  good,  as  if  an  unnatural  bent  were 
given  to  social  energies.  No  ;  if  the  common  good  had  not  such 
a  specific  effect,  it  would  no  longer  be  the  common  good,  and 
society  would  not  attain  its  scope. 

A  sufficient  reason  for  the  existence  of  society  is  the  common 
good — that  is,  the  good  of  all.  To  deny  that  the  weaker  parts, 
which  are  also  the  more  numerous,  have  need  of  aid  from  the 
upper  and  powerful  classes  is  to  wish  that  they  should  not  have 
in  society  any  comfort  or  support. 

Our  idea  of  democracy  is  conformable  to  that  which  we  have 
given  of  society.  It  ought  to  be  realised  that  society  may  be 
truly  civilised. 


20 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


It  is  evident  that  this  idea  of  social  democracy,  which  is  founded 
on  natural  law,  because  it  comes  from  an  analysis  of  the  idea  of 
society,  is  only  with  difficulty  reduced  to  practice  by  men  who 
are  urged  on  by  the  forces  of  nature  alone.  Jesus  Christ,  in  the 
Gospel,  raising  His  voice  against  the  rich  and  great  in  favour  of 
the  poor  and  humble,  has  developed  this  idea  in  a  very  clear  light, 
and  by  the  help  of  His  grace  has  rendered  its  observance  more 
easy. 

The  work  of  redemption  is  expressed  by  the  Scriptural 
aphorism,  The  truth  shall  make  you  jree  ;  and  the  truth  that  will 
make  you  free  will  make  all  free. 

The  truth,  preached  by  Christ  on  the  equality  of  men,  on  the 
end  for  which  earthly  things  were  created,  on  the  love  that  men 
owe  reciprocally  to  one  another,  is  that  which  sets  us  free 
individually  and  collectively.  Man,  of  himself,  following  the 
impulse  of  selfishness,  makes  another  man  his  slave ;  one  class 
subjects  another.  Christ  by  His  truth  sets  us  free. 

If  man  takes  as  the  rule  of  his  life  the  lessons  of  truth  on  his 
last  end  as  well  as  on  the  use  for  which  earthly  things  should 
serve — Seek  ye  therefore  -first  the  kingdom  of  God ,  and  His  justice , 
and  all  these  things  shall  he  added  unto  you — he  will  have  realised 
for  himself  that  liberation  which  Christ  brought  by  means  of  the 
truth. 

And  this  liberation  ought  to  extend  to  all  that  are  men  :  in  such 
a  way  that  if  there  are,  as  there  will  of  course  be,  some  more 
weak,  more  miserable,  to  them  should  revert  that  excess  of  strength 
and  wealth  which  exists  in  others.  “  In  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testament  this  special  solicitude  embraces  not 
only  the  labouring  or  disinherited  classes,  but  extends  to  such 
as  are  lowly,  weak,  needy,  forsaken,  no  less  than  to  children,  to 
orphans,  to  widows,  to  strangers,  to  the  unfortunate.  It  shows 
that  the  title  to  this  special  care,  on  the  part  of  him  who  is  ready 
to  fall,  is  not  merely  an  economic  inferiority,  but  any  deficiency 
that  requires  to  be  supplied  from  the  superabundance  of  others  ; 
and,  moreover,  the  end  to  which  this  kindly  treatment  of  inferiors 
tends  is  not  only  to  keep  them  safe,  but  to  improve  their  con¬ 
dition  ”  (Toniolo). 

With  reason,  therefore,  does  Toniolo  conclude  that  Christianity 
alone  has  taught  this  idea  of  democracy,  and  that  the  elements 
of  it  are  contained  in  Holy  Writ. 

There  remains  another  most  important  question :  How  is 
society  to  be  regulated  that  it  may  become  democratic  in  this 
Christian  manner  ?  And  here  appears  the  practical  programme 
of  Christian  Democracy. 

If,  on  this  ideal  Democracy,  there  is  no  room  for  discussion, 
because,  as  is  said  by  the  instruction  of  the  Congregation  for 
Extraordinary  Ecclesiastical  A  ffairs,  it  is  founded  on  the  natural 
law  and  the  Gospel  precepts,  and  is  therefore  unchangeable, 
the  discussion  may  fall  on  particular  points  of  the  practical 


CHRISTIAN  DEMOCRACY 


21 


programme.  In  the  encyclicals  of  Leo  XIII.  some  of  these  points 
are  clearly  indicated,  such  as  the  reorganisation  of  society  ;  others 
are  deduced  from  principles  already  established  ;  and  others  again 
are  derived  from  the  lessons  of  history,  from  daily  experience, 
and  from  science. 

The  practical  programme  is  a  means  to  obtain  Christian 
Democracy.  Hence,  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary,  nor  need  it 
be  quite  the  same  for  every  time  and  every  place. 

Christian  Democratic  action  has  as  its  object  to  put  in  practice 
that  programme  which  serves  to  realise  the  benefits  of  true 
Democracy. 

Among  the  points  of  the  Democratic  Christian  programme  there 
is  one  that  regards  the  intervention  of  the  State. 

This  intervention  being  indispensable,  it  may  be  lawfully 
invoked  when  not  present. 

Someone  may  ask :  Is  our  action  political  ?  May  we  take 
our  stand  on  the  ground  of  religion  ?  May  we  act  in  the  name 
of  the  Church  ? 

These  questions  were  raised  specially  after  the  recent  instruc¬ 
tions  of  the  Holy  See,  and  they  are  most  important. 

The  art  of  ruling  people  properly,  so  as  to  promote  the  common 
wellbeing,  is  called  policy. 

This  gives  precepts  of  good  government,  and  even  it  is  subj  ect 
to  the  moral  code,  which  it  can  never  justly  violate. 

The  duty  of  respect  for  the  moral  law  regards  all  political 
precepts  and  documents.  Within  the  limits  fixed  by  this  law, 
policy  can  freely  accomplish  all  its  work  of  thought  and  deed, 
like  any  other  science  or  art. 

It  has,  however,  this  peculiarity,  that,  in  treating  of  its  own 
object,  it  meets  with  the  elements  of  natural  or  divine  law,  so  that 
it  cannot  give  a  preference  to  what  is  forbidden ;  it  cannot, 
for  example,  abolish  the  duty  of  subjects  to  obey  the  constituted 
authorities.  Documents  that  regard  these  laws  of  nature,  of  God, 
or  of  man,  it  receives  from  morals,  rather  than  that  it  creates  them. 
They  are  the  documents  that  Jesus  Christ,  who  came  to  perfect, 
not  to  destroy,  nature,  made  His  own,  and  constituted  as  the 
policy  or  social  economy  of  the  Gospel. 

Outside  these  lines  policy  has  a  wide  margin,  all  its  own,  which 
it  may  cover  with  the  industrious  web  of  its  precepts  and  its 
discipline  :  pure  simple  policy,  which  gains  more  or  less  credit 
and  strength  from  the  conditions  of  the  people,  from  the  events 
of  the  time,  and  from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  carried  out. 

The  Church,  the  guardian  of  morals  and  religion,  teaches, 
defends,  and  considers  as  her  own  the  first  kind  of  political 
precepts ;  and  we,  her  children,  can  and  should  defend  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Church.  With  regard  to  other  documents 
of  pure  policy  we,  as  men  and  as  scientists,  can  argue,  discuss, 
condemn,  or  approve,  but  not  in  the  name  of  the  Church.  If 
one  man  believes  that  a  republic  is  a  better  form  of  government 


22 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


for  the  people,  let  him  believe  it ;  let  him  even  condemn  the  man 
who  asserts  the  contrary.  But  let  him  do  so  in  the  name  of  his 
own  reason,  not  in  the  name  of  the  Church,  which,  like  morals, 
stands  high  above  debates  and  above  parties.  To  make  the 
Church  responsible  for  the  views  of  individuals  would,  according 
to  the  Instruction,  be  an  intolerable  abuse. 

Such,  in  our  opinion,  is  the  order  of  ideas  by  which  the  question 
of  policy  in  Catholic  action  is  to  be  judged.  Even  Catholics,  and 
their  associations,  can  prefer  one  form  of  government  rather  than 
another  ;  but  let  them  not  say  that  this  preference  is  that  of  the 
Church. 

History  relates  of  Galileo  that  he  was  perfectly  free  to  maintain 
and  defend  his  system,  but  not  to  do  so  as  a  doctrine  of  the  Church. 

Hence,  Antoine  concludes : — “  So  much  being  granted,  it 
follows  that  Democracy,  in  its  chief  essential  meaning,  ought  to 
be  accepted  by  all  Catholics,  because  it  comes  from  the  essence 
of  the  Gospel,  and  is  an  efficacious  means  of  promoting  concord, 
while,  in  its  secondary  or  accidental — that  is,  political — sense,  it 
can  be  lawfully  accepted  or  rejected  without  giving  any  serious 
motive  of  discord  among  Catholics.” 


Section  XII. — The  Foundations  of  Social  Life. 

Life  flourishes  in  society  by  the  exercise  of  various  functions 
of  the  social  organs.  In  proportion  to  the  vigour  and  spontaneity 
of  these  functions,  civil  life  becomes  more  flourishing,  and  more 
fruitful  of  good.  But  these  functions  arise  from  free  and  rational 
elements,  which  are  not  moved  by  blind  necessity,  but  by  delibera¬ 
tion.  Now,  the  power  that  acts  on  the  will  is  duty.  Therefore, 
a  deep  sense  of  morality  is  at  the  root  of  social  functions — that 
morality  which  dictates  to  man  his  social  duties.  The  morality 
of  the  individuals  who  compose  society  is,  therefore,  the  first 
foundation  of  its  life. 

Morality  binds  man  to  an  authority  above  man — to  God.  The 
relations  that  man  has  with  God  require  religion.  Without 
religion  it  is  absurd  to  speak  of  morality.  Therefore,  religion 
is  also  a  foundation  of  the  social  life. 

Christianity,  that  is,  Catholicism,  which  has  awakened  in 
individuals  the  consciousness  of  social  duties — which  has  disposed 
minds  to  sacrifice,  to  self-denial,  to  the  practice  of  justice  and 
charity — has  contributed  wonderfully  to  the  life  of  society,  and 
may  well  be  declared  its  most  solid  foundation.  Let  us  hear 
Weiss.  “  The  social  question,”  he  says,  “  will  give  very  little 
trouble  from  the  day  in  which  the  foundations  of  social  order — 
mercy,  justice,  and  fidelity — will  again  be  safe,  or,  as  the  noble 
Le  Play  used  to  say,  when  the  Ten  Commandments  will  again 
become  the  fundamental  laws  of  our  public  life.  But  no  one 
can  deny  that  this  basis  will  never  be  soundly  and  durably 


JUSTICE  AND  CHARITY 


23 


established,  so  as  to  support  the  whole  world,  if  religion  is  not 
the  corner-stone,  and  if  the  edifice  is  not  placed  in  the  closest 
union  with  the  Church.” 


Section  XIII. — Justice  and  Charity. 

Reason,  with  which  man  is  endowed,  places  between  him 
and  creatures  devoid  of  it  so  great  a  difference  that  many  expres¬ 
sions  may.be  applied  to  him  which  could  not  be  at  all  applied  to 
them.  Who,  for  example,  would  say  that- a  plant  owns  its  branch, 
or  that  the  piece  of  bread  which  a  dog  is  eating  belongs  to  it  ? 
No  one,  except  by  figurative  language. 

Man  was  created  with  a  certain  degree  of  reality  and  another 
of  potentiality. 

If  we  mentally  analyse  the  individual  man,  and  observe  the 
elements  of  his  composition,  we  have  material  for  a  proposition 
of  identity — man  is  the  subject,  and  the  sum  of  the  elements  the 
attribute.  Now,  that  the  judgment  may  be  exact,  it  is  proper, 
it  is  necessary,  that  the  attribute  should  include  not  only  the 
real  components,  but  also  the  potential  ones,  not  because  these 
latter  have  to-day  any  value  of  use,  but  because  they  are  the 
basis  of  a  value  that  man  is  called  to  acquire  by  the  exercise  of  his 
activity.  Every  individual  man,  therefore,  is  equal  to  his  reality 
plus  his  potentiality.  He  has  a  right  to  keep  the  former ;  he 
has  a  right  to  develop  the  latter. 

This  consideration  shows  us  man  as  if  occupying  here  some 
ground  on  which  he  has  not  built,  but  on  which  he  has  a  good  right 
to  build  :  a  moral  ground,  which,  by  being  a  consequence  of  his 
rational  nature,  is  naturally  his  own,  no  less  than  his  own  real 
individuality. 

The  individual  lives,  as  it  were,  in  a  sphere  by  himself.  Every 
man  has  his  own  sphere. 

The  development  of  each  man  in  his  own  sphere  is,  we  say, 
just,  or  we  call  it  justice. 

By  just  we  mean  that  which  goes  well,  evenly,  smoothly,  as 
on  a  level.  And  it  is  precisely  a  levelling  of  human  beings, 
making  account  of  their  reality  and  potentiality',  that  is  called 
justice. 

St.  Thomas  says,  Dicuntur  quce  cequantur  justari  (those  things 
which  are  made  equal  are  said  to  be  made  just).  And  common 
speech  confirms  it :  two  music  strings  that  give  the  same  sound 
are  said  to  be  in  just  accord. 

In  the  social  body  it  is  the  wish  of  nature  that  all  men  should 
exist,  and  that  everyone  should  exist  with  his  own  real  and  poten¬ 
tial  personality,  everyone  in  a  space  sufficiently  commodious 
that  his  natural  activity  may  develop  itself  for  his  own  perfection. 

If  men  stand  at  their  posts,  if  they  respect  the  spheres  of  those 
with  whom  they  live,  they  observe  justice,  and  are  just. 


24 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


“  Here  (in  society),”  says  Weiss,  “  every  member  has  his  post 
fixed,  which  he  cannot  abandon  ;  everyone  has  his  duty  assigned, 
to  which  he  should  not  be  unfaithful ;  everyone  has  his  limit, 
which  he  cannot  cross  without  prejudice  to  others  and  disadvantage 
to  himself ;  but  everyone  has  his  right  secured,  to  which  no  one, 
not  even  the  whole  community,  can  bring  detriment.” 

If  one  quits  his  post,  and,  desirous  of  greater  expansion,  invades 
the  space  that  naturally  belongs  to  another,  he  violates  the  right 
of  another,  and  is  said  to  be  unjust. 

Hence,  in  our  view,  justice,  objectively  considered,  is  the 
permanence  of  the  individual  within  himself,  or  within  the  circle 
of  his  own  individuality  ;  considered  as  a  commutative  virtue, 
it  is  the  respect  that  each  individual  owes  to  the  individuality  of 
another. 

So  much  being  granted,  it  is  understood  how  justice  is  that  chain 
which  nature  has  appointed  to  bind  men  together  for  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  the  social  body,  or,  in  short,  that  it  is  the  cohesive  force 
of  the  social  molecules. 

Let  no  one  fear  that  this  idea  presents  justice  to  us  excessively 
or  solely  pronounced  in  favour  of  the  individual.  Such  would 
be  a  very  one-sided  view.  Consider  that  the  individual  who 
shuts  himself  up  altogether  in  himself  separates  from  others ; 
or  that  from  the  very  idea  of  justice  there  flows  a  right  and  a 
duty — a  right  to  make  one’s  own  one’s  own,  and  a  duty  to  respect 
the  rights  of  others. 

Moreover,  in  the  sphere  of  individual  potentiality,  which  we 
wish  to  see  safe  and  respected,  we  recognise  the  right  of  man 
not  to  be  prevented  from  the  observance  of  his  social  duties. 
And  if  these  are  the  proximate  bonds  of  the  social  body,  justice 
is  as  it  were  the  nervous  system. 

In  other  words,  justice  means  every  man  at  his  post.  That 
every  individual  should  remain  at  his  post  is  a  right  and  a  duty. 
Because,  if  he  is  removed  from  it,  it  is  also  justice  that  strictly 
wishes  his  return  or  restoration.  Between  man  and  man,  justice, 
called  commutative,  stands  as  a  guardian  or  an  avenger,  com¬ 
manding  that  everyone  should  retain  his  right  to  equality. 

Hence  it  is  seen  how  great  is  the  extent  of  justice.  It  reaches 
as  far  as  man  reaches,  both  physically  and  morally.  To  confine 
it  to  the  economic  man,  and  to  the  relations  that  exist  on  economic 
grounds  between  man  and  man,  is  to  form  but  a  poor  idea  of  it. 
Nor  is  the  idea  of  it  full  or  complete  if  it  is  not  required  between 
moral  man  and  moral  man. 

The  analysis  of  the  conditions  in  which  the  right  of  the 
individual  is  found  and  developed  is  not  finished.  We  must 
continue  it.  It  is  proper  to  observe  that  man  has  before  him 
not  only  the  individual,  but,  what  is  much  more  important,  civil 
society  in  general.  This  can  bring  great  advantage  or  injury 
to  human  personality. 

Now,  we  know  that  society  exists  by  an  ordinance  of  nature, 


JUSTICE  AND  CHAEITY 


25 


and  exists  in  favour  of  the  individual.  Hence  the  existence  of 
natural  relations  between  the  individual  and  the  social  body, 
of  which  he  is  a  part.  The  sum  of  these  relations  constitutes 
social  justice. 

Society  exists  in  favour  of  individuals,  but  it  also  exists  by  the 
co-operation  of  these  same  individuals.  Thus,  two  series  of 
relations  :  some  go  from  individuals  to  the  social  body,  others 
from  the  latter  to  the  former.  Individuals  have  the  two-fold 
right  of  expecting  from  the  social  body  a  defence  of  their  own 
personality  and  an  increase  of  their  own  wellbeing.  It  is  in  this 
two- fold  right,  of  which  the  individuals  the  subject  and  society 
the  term,  that  social  distributive  justice  consists. 

Society  has  a  right  that  the  individuals  who  compose  it  should 
contribute  to  its  existence,  preservation,  and  prosperity  with 
that  share  of  real  and  personal  sacrifice  which  is  indispensable, 
that  it  may  promote  the  welfare  of  the  individuals  themselves. 
This  right  is  called  social  contributive  or  legal  justice. 

Though  all  this  is  true,  it  is  at  the  same  time  clear  that  the 
violation  of  individual  justice  is  not  the  only  cause  that  can 
displace  man  from  his  sphere — that  can  deprive  him  of  the 
exercise  of  his  rights  and  of  a  participation  in  natural  goods. 
No  ;  other  forces  act  on  man,  weary  him,  and  cast  him  down. 

His  own  passions,  indulged  beyond  what  is  lawful,  are  the  first 
cause  of  many  losses,  and  often  of  total  ruin,  for  the  individual. 
Then,  nature  does  not  always  give  us  its  works  perfect,  and  often 
the  real  man  does  not  arrive  at  that  degree  which,  in  the  intention 
of  nature  itself,  would  be  required  for  the  development  of  his 
potentiality.  Often  in  the  struggle  for  this  development  the 
real  succumbs  by  collision  with  an  insurmountable  obstacle. 
All  these  occurrences  are,  more  or  less,  misfortunes. 

Then — I  mean  when  misfortunes  strike  the  individual — shall 
he  be  deprived  of  that  to  which  natural  justice  gives  him  a  right  ? 

A  higher,  a  broader  justice  will  then  sustain  him,  and  it  is  the 
justice  of  Divine  Providence. 

Reason  teaches  us  that,  if  the  distribution  of  natural  goods 
is  to  be  made  according  to  mutual  duties  and  rights,  therefore 
those  goods  have  a  general  destination,  from  which  even  the 
distribution  of  individual  justice  cannot  withdraw  them  ;  and  it 
is  the  use  of  them  for  the  wants  of  all  mankind.  This  justice, 
in  a  broad  sense,  requires  that  he  who  holds  his  own  by  a  strict 
right,  using  this  same  strict  right,  should  give  thereof  to  him 
who  for  any  reason  is  deprived  of  what  is  needful,  and  give  in  pro¬ 
portion  not  only  to  the  want  of  his  neighbour,  but  to  the  extent 
of  his  own  superabundance.  This  justice,  which  does  not  grant 
to  the  miserable  a  strict  right  or  claim,  is  what  is  called  by  the 
sweet  name  of  charity. 

We  see,  therefore,  how  it  is  reserved  for  charity  to  fill  up  the 
voids  that  justice  leaves  incomplete — to  give  the  finishing  strokes 
to  the  work.  It  is  thus  understood  that,  for  the  solution  of  the 


26 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


social  question,  we  ought  to  come  to  it  first  with  justice  and  then, 
with  charity. 

Where  justice  is  called  for,  justice  ought  to  be  done.  Where 
strict  justice  does  not  come  in,  let  charity  take  its  place.  Hence, 
the  function  of  charity  is  supplementary. 

While  saying  so,  we  do  not  at  all  mean  to  lessen  the  value  of 
the  noblest  of  Christian  virtues  (charity),  nor  in  any  way  to 
contradict  the  Pontiff,  who  calls  it  a  summary  law  of  the  whole 
Gospel. 

Charity  consists  essentially  in  a  movement  of  the  heart  towards 
a  fellow-being,  whom  one  wishes  to  help.  Justice  itself  consists 
in  a  bending  of  the  will  towards  the  neighbour.  The  title,  which 
is  more  strict  in  justice  than  in  charity,  shows  the  species  of  the 
two  acts  ;  but  the  greater  obligation  of  justice  does  not  take  away 
the  obligation  of  charity.  Each  fulfils  a  function  indispensable 
for  the  right  progress  of  the  social  body,  and  fulfils  it  by  the  will 
of  God,  who  will  call  men  to  account  for  their  observance  of  both. 

Notwithstanding  the  character  of  strict  obligation  that  is  found 
in  justice,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  a  spontaneous  motion 
from  arising  in  the  will  by  the  light  of  conscience,  and  leading  to 
the  performance  of  an  act  that  justice  commands.  Then  every¬ 
one  sees  that  account  ought  to  be  made  of  that  spontaneity 
which  appears  in  a  good  soul,  and  logically  precedes  the  obliga¬ 
tion  of  justice. 

A  soul  eminently  Christian  always  feels  in  itself  those  sweet 
and  salutary  emotions.  Behold  why  and  in  what  sense  Leo  XIII. 
called  charity  a  compendium  of  the  whole  gospel.  For  the  rest, 
what  we  maintain  somewhat  diffusely  might  be  clearly  recalled 
even  by  the  words  of  the  same  Pontiff  in  the  encyclical  Graves 
de  communi  : — “  The  law  of  mutual  charity,  which  is,  as  it  were, 
the  perfection  of  that  of  justice,  imposes  the  obligation,  not  only 
of  giving  to  everyone  his  own  and  of  invading  the  rights  of  none, 
but  also  of  favouring  one  another,  not  only  in  word  and  in  tongue, 
but  in  deed  and  in  truth  ”  (1  John  iii.,  18).  Nor  do  we  think 
that  he  wished  the  words  of  St.  Paul  to  be  understood  in  any 
other  sense  :  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law  (Romans  xiii.,  10). 5 


Themes  for  Development. — Duty  of  men  to  live  in  society,  to  perform 
works  of  common  utility.  How  the  religious  orders,  &c.,  can  defend  them¬ 
selves  with  regard  to  this  duty.  What  was  the  primitive  manner  of  living 
in  the  human  family  ;  if  the  state  of  barbarism.,  dreamt  of  by  some 
positivists,  can  be  maintained  ? — Individual  liberty  cannot  be  the  only 
law  or  ruling  cause  of  social  conditions — Explain,  according  to  what  we  have 
said,  the  first  point  of  the  Democratic  Christian  Programme :  “  We  wish 

the  gradual  organisation  of  society  in  corporate,  autonomous,  general, 
official  associations.  Let  all  the  citizens  belonging  to  the  same  business 
or  to  groups  of  analogous  occupations  unite  together,  preserving  individually 
their  proper  function  (as  masters,  managers,  workmen,  apprentices)  in  order  to 
discuss  and  regulate  their  reciprocal  relations,  and  to  safeguard  their  common 
interests.  We,  therefore,  ask  that  the  State  and  all  minor  public  bodies 
should  favour  in  every  manner  this  tendency  to  corporate  organisation. 


SOCIAL  ELEMENTS 


27 


especially  by  giving  full  liberty  and  legal  recognition  to  those  trade  and 
professional  unions  which,  under  the  action  of  private  initiative,  will  be 
formed  ”  — Rural  unions  to  be  formed  in  the  same  way  for  the  benefit  of 
the  farming  classes  :  describe  their  functions — Give  a  sketch  of  the  statutes 
of  a  rural  union — History  tells  of  the  causes  by  which  the  old  guilds 
came  to  ruin :  some  causes  were  intrinsic,  because  such  bodies  did  not 
know  how  to  renovate  themselves  on  the  arrival  of  new  times  and  new 
circumstances  ;  other  causes  were  extrinsic,  and  of  a  political  order — 
Various  classes  of  workingmen  ;  duty  in  the  contract  of  labour  ;  conduct  to 
be  observed  in  case  of  a  strike — The  abandonment  of  Christian  principles 
leads  to  forgetfulness  of  social  duties,  and,  therefore,  to  the  injury  of  society. 

■4* 

CHAPTER  II. 

CLEAR  IDEAS. 

Section  I. — Social  Elements. 

If  we  examine  carefully  the  social  body,  we  ought  to  arrive 
at  the  elements  of  which  it  is  composed.  Taken  altogether, 
they  would  be  called,  in  scholastic  language,  the  material  cause 
of  society.  These  elements  are  not  all  of  one  kind  ;  there  are 
more  complex  ones  and  less  complex  ones,  which  are  made  up 
of  simple  ones,  and  admit  of  analysis  down  to  the  most  simple 
or  the  primary. 

Some  complex  ones  are  proximate  or  immediate  compounds ; 
others,  remote  or  mediate.  Just  as  in  a  material  body,  there  are 
molecules  and  atoms. 

To  examine  these  elements  one  by  one  is  a  vital  part  of  our  study. 

Section  II. — Man. 

The  decomposition  of  the  social  body  gives  us  human  individuals 
as  the  ultimate  and  simplest  elements. 

To  form  a  just  idea  of  a  human  person  is,  above  all,  necessary 
for  the  study  of  social  functions,  because,  as  we  shall  see,  the  good 
of  the  individual  is  the  object  of  civil  society. 

What  then  is  a  human  person  ?  There  is  the  liberal  idea, 
and  the  Christian  idea,  of  a  human  person.  Let  us  consider  both. 

Section  III. — The  Human  Person  :  Liberal  Idea. 

Rationalistic  philosophy  does  not  concern  itself  ver}^  much 
about  the  origin  of  man.  It  does  not  believe  that  it  is  bound 
to  lose  time  on  such  a  subject.  At  most,  it  says  that  he  came 
from  nature — a  saying  that  offends  the  nerves  of  no  one,  not  even 
of  those  who  have  them  most  sensitive  at  the  sound  of  the  word 
God. 

Charles  Darwin  and  his  followers  apply  to  the  origin  of  man 
the  system  of  the  transformation  of  species,  which  places  us  in 
our  infant  days  on  the  breast  of  an  ape  or  a  baboon.  And 
Darwinism  at  present  enjoys  much  favour  in  the  liberal  camp. 


28 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


As  a  fact,  materialists  see  in  man  an  animal  perfected,  which 
lives  on  earth  for  a  certain  number  of  years,  overwhelmed  with 
troubles,  cheered  by  few  joys,  urged  on  by  instincts  that  it  cannot 
resist,  and  at  last  vanishing  like  the  flame  of  a  lamp  that  is 
extinguished. 

The  spiritualists  give  the  body  a  soul,  but  they  do  not  raise 
it,  at  least  in  its  final  state,  above  matter.  They  do  not  wish  it 
to  be  the  queen,  but  the  slave  of  the  body. 

The  socialists  lower  still  more  the  idea  of  man.  They  see  in 
him  a  machine  endowed  with  the  double  power  of  producing 
and  consuming.  The  steam  that  puts  the  machine  in  motion 
is  pleasure.  Production  costs  fatigue,  but  it  is  endured,  because 
the  thing  produced  will  satisfy  wants — will  procure  pleasures. 

These  are  the  liberal  ideas  about  man,  which  have  all  a  common 
element,  and  it  is  this  :  man  has  on  earth  his  proper  end  or  ideal ; 
it  consists  in  enjoying  life. 

The  riddle  of  life  is  not  explained  by  the  socialists,  and  if  any¬ 
one  wishes  to  know  something  more  about  it  from  them,  they 
answer  majestically,  Nay  ! 

These  modes  of  considering  man  do  not  make,  at  least  in 
practical  life,  any  difference  between  him  and  the  brute.  Action 
certainly  ought  to  be  directed  according  to  an  end  :  identity 
of  end  implies  identity  of  life  and  conduct. 

By  way  of  conclusion,  this  is  the  place  to  observe  : — 

1.  Human  personality,  thus  imagined,  is  degraded  ;  nor  could 
we  know — except  perhaps  through  custom — by  what  title  it 
might  be  called  human.  It  is  easy  to  recognise  in  man  something 
that  is  not  in  the  brute  ;  but  if  this  something  has  not  a  last  end 
that  calls  to  itself  the  whole  man,  with  a  right  to  govern  him, 
it  ought  at  least  to  serve  for  the  attainment  of  a  last  end — which, 
if  it  is  common  to  man  and  beast,  gives  no  reason  to  suppose 
any  superiority  in  human  over  beastly  life.  Both,  man  and  beast, 
die,  and  they  are  only  matter. 

2.  Man  thus  imagined,  a  moral  law  for  him  can  no  longer  be 
imagined.  On  what  could  it  rest  ?  A  moral  law  that  does  not 
lead  me  to  my  last  end  is  an  absurdity  ;  and  if  my  last  end  is  here, 
is  to  enjoy  life,  that  which  brings  me  to  this  enjoyment  is  moral ; 
that  which  brings  me  to  the  greatest  enjoyment  is  most  moral. 

3.  It  is  absurd  to  recognise  good  and  bad  tendencies  in  man. 
Nothing  can  be  more  clear.  What  pleases  is  good,  what  dis¬ 
pleases  is  bad.  How  can  there  be  any  bad  tendencies  in  man  ? 
And  how  can  it  be  said  that  there  are  instincts  or  propensities 
to  do  evil  ?  Absurd  notions  !  All  the  inclinations  of  man  are 
good.  They  are  his  laws.  They  are  like  the  reins  that  nature 
laid  on  the  back  of  the  first  man  before  letting  him  take  his  course, 
so  that  they  might  keep  him  from  breaking  his  neck.  Behold 
man  under  the  government  of  nature  !  To  withdraw  him  from 
this  government  is  to  spoil  what  has  been  well  done,  is  to  take 
the  horse  out  of  the  hands  of  its  proper  driver,  is  to  ruin  it.  And 


THE  HUMAN  PERSON ;  LIBERAL  IDEA 


29 


this  is  precisely  what,  according  to  Rousseau,  happened  to  man 
by  the  fault  of  society,  which  was  the  cause  of  all  his  misfortunes. 

4.  From  the  idea  set  forth  regarding  man  it  follows  that  every 
man  is  all  for  himself.  If  here  on  earth,  where  life  is  soon  finished, 
I  have  my  end,  I  have  a  duty  and  a  right  to  adopt  the  means 
for  attaining  it.  To  think  of  my  feilowman  is  to  act  contrary 
to  my  own  interest,  it  is  to  rob  myself,  it  is  to  neglect  my  end. 
Behold  individualism,  which  makes  every  man  believe  himself 
the  whole  world  !  Behold  selfishness,  the  lord  of  man’s  life  ! 
Duties  of  justice  and  charity  go  thus  to  ruin,  and  all  by  the  force 
of  logic  !  On  this  subject  the  Supreme  Pontiff  lately  wrote 
with  a  masterly  pen  : — “  If  man  breaks  the  chains  that  bind  him 
to  God,  the  absolute  and  universal  legislator  and  judge,  there 
is  nothing  left  but  an  appearance  of  moral  law,  purely  civil,  or, 
as  it  is  said,  independent,  which,  prescinding  from  the  eternal 
reason  and  the  divine  precepts,  leads  inevitably  to  the  final  and 
fatal  consequence  of  making  man  a  law  for  himself.  He,  incapable 
of  rising  on  the  wings  of  Christian  hope  to  heavenly  goods,  will 
seek  only  earthly  food  in  the  enjoyments  of  life — sharpening  the 
thirst  for  pleasures,  the  desire  of  riches,  and  a  greed  for  rapid 
and  immediate  gains,  without  regard  to  justice.”  {Lei.  Ap., 
19.  3. ’02.) 

Hence  comes  the  so-called  materialistic  idea  of  history,  which — 
although  not  expressed  by  all  in  the  same  manner — is  in  substance 
that  the  life  of  mankind  is  a  great  process  of  evolution.  This 
is  accomplished  under  the  influence  of  economic  necessities,  and 
of  the  tendencies  that  man  has  to  the  pleasures  of  life.  Every 
act  of  man  has  for  its  reason  an  economic  wrant.  To  labour  and 
to  produce,  and  to  produce  in  order  to  find  pleasures  1  The  very 
existence  of  man  in  society  has  its  foundation  in  production  and 
in  the  exchange  of  products.  Thus  waites  Engel : — “  The  ultim  ate 
causes  of  every  social  variation  and  every  political  revolution 
are  to  be  sought,  not  in  the  heads  of  men,  but  in  changes  of  the 
manner  of  production,  in  changes  of  the  methods  of  barter  ; 
not  in  the  philosophy,  but  in  the  economy  of  a  preceding  age.” 

This  theory  is  pleasing  to  the  socialists,  and  is  perhaps  the  only 
principle  that  they  have  not  yet  abandoned  ;  because,  according 
to  them,  morals  and  religions  are  things  which,  going  with  the 
stream  of  ages,  can  be  excused  for  a  time,  or  can  well  enough 
serve  in  want  of  better.  But  the  day  will  come — that  of  perfect 
(and,  as  they  say,  stable)  evolution — when  these  poetic  legends 
will  fall  to  the  ground,  without  being  thrown  down.  All  this 
by  the  force  of  events,  for  such  legends  can  be  done  without. 

The  misfortune  is  that  this  theory  is  nothing  but — a 
theory  ! 

A  calm  study  of  the  world  and  of  man  convinces  us  of  the 
government  of  Divine  Providence,  of  the  existence  of  a  free  and 
immortal  soul  in  man,  and  of  the  duties  that  man  owes  to  God, 
to  himself,  and  to  his  feilowman. 


30 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


Section  IV. — The  Human  Person  :  Christian  Idea. 

Very  differently  do  we  Christians  think  of  man ;  and  facts, 
far  from  disproving,  confirm  our  ideas. 

We  study  the  origin  of  man,  and  we  cannot  place  it  anywhere 
but  in  God,  from  whose  hands,  by  creation,  he  came  forth  good, 
as  much  so  and  more  than  some  of  our  physicists  think,  and  the 
Scripture  also  says  that  God  made  man  right — fecit  hominem 
rectum.  We  admit,  however,  that  there  was  a  fall,  by  which 
human  nature  was  vitiated.  Hence  those  evil  tendencies,  which, 
in  our  view,  are  an  explanation  of  so  many  individual  and  social 
disorders. 

In  point  of  fact,  we  recognise  man  as  composed  of  soul  and 
body.  The  soul  is  in  him  as  the  principle  of  all  life  and  operation. 
It  bears  the  responsibility  of  good  and  evil. 

We  recognise  in  man  a  warfare  between  the  superior  and  the 
inferior  part.  In  this  warfare  the  nobler  part  can  and  should 
conquer. 

Created  by  the  Almighty,  man  must  have  been,  like  every  other 
creature,  intended  by  God  Himself  for  an  end. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  life  of  man  here  on  earth  shows  itself 
insufficient  to  be  his  last  end.  It  is  wanting  in  goods,  defective 
in  conditions,  restricted  in  limits.  It  lasts  only  a  few  years,  and 
then  vanishes  :  the  brilliant  light  sinks  into  the  grave.  Man, 
at  the  close  of  his  days,  is  an  incomplete  being.  Human  life  has 
here  too  many  and  too  evident  marks  of  its  transitory  character. 
It  is  impossible  that  God  should  have  made  man  only  for  this  life. 
We  must  look  for  something  beyond  this  world  that  may  be  called 
a  life  truly  worthy  of  man. 

Behold  !  Reason  and  religion  tell  us  that  the  soul  cannot  perish 
with  the  body,  after  whose  death  it  must  find  an  immortal  life. 

It  being  always  the  same  individual  who  lives  in  this  life  and 
in  the  other,  there  cannot  be  two  last  ends.  There  must  be  only 
one ;  and  the  present  life  must  be  a  preparation  for  the  future 
life,  mortal  man  for  the  immortal  man. 

Moreover,  man  has  an  advantage  over  other  worldly  beings 
by  the  gift  of  liberty,  and  his  actions  are  the  offspring  of  intelli¬ 
gence  and  will.  Is  he  free  to  direct  them  to  an  object  that  is  not 
his  last  end  ?  It  is  a  contradiction.  Therefore,  it  is  the  will 
of  God  that  he  should  subordinate  his  actions  to  the  attainment 
of  his  last  end.  Thus  the  future  life  appears  as  the  moderating 
rule  of  everything  in  the  present  life. 

Therefore,  eternal  life  is  a  reward.  If  there  is  a  reward  given 
to  him  who  does  good,  there  ought  to  be  a  punishment  for  him 
who  does  evil.  And  there  ought  to  be  a  judgment,  that  the 
reward  may  be  bestowed  and  the  punishment  inflicted.  All 
these  are  things  that  we  know  well  by  faith. 


DUTIES  AND  RIGHTS 


31 


From  this  mode  of  regarding  man,  several  consequences 
follow : — 

1.  His  personality.  Man  in  our  view  is  a  being  full,  perfect, 
endowed  with  what  is  necessary  for  the  attainment  of  his  end, 
and,  in  this  way,  independent.  A  servant  of  God,  he  is  the 
master  of  himself.  The  young  student  need  not  be  reminded 
by  us  that,  before  Christianity,  very  little  value  was  set  on  the 
personality  of  a  human  individual.  If  he  possessed  something, 
he  was  worth  something ;  if  he  possessed  much,  he  was  worth 
much ;  if  his  country  had  need  of  him  and  laid  hold  of  him  for 
some  enterprise,  he  was  a  man  that  counted.  But  the  individual 
alone,  the  man  alone,  despoiled  of  his  belongings,  was  little  better 
than  nothing  :  he  was  a  thing.  It  is  not  for  nothing  that  the 
New  Testament  speaks  so  often  of  the  liberty  and  independence 
of  man.  In  our  times,  when  some  of  the  clouds  rise,  we  see  again 
the  same  elimination  of  human  personality.  The  love  of  caste 
is  still  so  prevalent  in  some  regions  that  it  does  not  permit  one 
man  to  walk  with  another  whose  name  is  not  emblazoned.  The 
State  becomes  the  dispenser  of  individual  rights,  which  it  often 
violates.  The  socialists  wish  to  bring  us  down  to  zero,  delivering 
us,  like  a  great  heap  of  sand,  into  the  hands  of  the  State. 

2.  His  dignity.  For  he  is  placed  in  an  order  of  beings  essen¬ 
tially  superior  to  beasts.  Faith  exalts  much  more  the  nobility 
of  man,  showing  him  as  destined  for  a  supernatural  end  and 
endowed  by  grace  with  means  for  its  attainment. 

3.  That  he  is  during  the  present  life  in  a  state  of  transition, 
or  rather  of  labour — a  labour  that  ought  to  be  regulated  and  judged 
from  the  point  of  view  of  eternal  life,  in  which  he  will  reap  all 
its  best  fruits. 

4.  That  the  last  end  being  rest,  satisfaction,  enjoyment,  man 
cannot  be  found  perfectly  happy  on  earth.  He  will  be  so  in  the 
other  life,  if  he  has  merited  it  here. 

5.  The  goods,  therefore,  that  man  can  enjoy  here  below  are 
not  an  end  for  him,  but  a  means  to  an  end.  This  mode  of  valuing 
the  goods  of  time  differs  essentially  from  that  of  the  material 
sociologists,  for  whom  these  goods  are  everything.  What  a 
wretched  creature  would  man  thus  be  ! 

6.  That  man  ought  to  be  subject  to  laws,  which  direct  him  in 
such  a  way  that  by  his  conduct  he  may  arrive  at  his  last  end. 
And  here  come  the  duties  and  the  rights  of  man,  about  which 
some  special  words  have  to  be  plainly  spoken. 


Section  Y. — Duties  and  Rights. 

We  must  set  out  from  the  creature.  Now,  what  is  a  creature  ? 
It  is  a  being  that  God  has  placed  in  existence,  destining  it  for  an 
end,  which  in  the  mind  and  will  of  God  it  should  attain. 

The  means  of  travelling  to  this  end,  God  Himself  should  have 


32 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


given  to  the  creature.  To  deny  this  would  be  to  affirm  that  God 
wishes  it  to  go  thither  when  there  is  no  road.  The  road  ought 
to  be  there ;  and  it  certainly  is  there.  The  journey  is  made 
in  different  modes,  according  to  the  qualities  of  the  creature. 

If  the  creature  is  blind,  without  a  knowledge  of  its  acts,  without 
a  consciousness  of  its  end,  it  runs  along  the  road  blindly,  like 
an  engine  on  the  rails.  The  hand  of  God,  which  brought  it  into 
existence,  is  its  continual  guide  to  the  attainment  of  its  end* 

If  the  creature  is  intelligent,  and  therefore  free,  the  Creator 
ought  not  to  guide  it  with  an  iron  hand,  if  He  would  not  destroy 
its  nature.  The  Creator  then  guides  it  by  means  of  laws,  which 
from  on  high  throw  light  on  the  road,  and  show  it  the  necessity 
of  travelling  thereby  in  order  to  reach  its  end. 

On  the  fact  of  a  blind  creature  being  drawn  by  the  hand  of  God 
to  its  end,  reasoning  is  not  called  for.  Nothing  remains  but 
to  admire  the  omnipotence  of  God,  which  is  manifested  in  this 
wonderful  fact. 

Concerning  a  creature  that  is  called  to  accomplish  its  mission 
rationally  and  freely,  we  must  proceed  in  a  different  manner. 
It,  knowing  itself  to  be  a  creature  of  God,  feels  that  it  belongs  to 
Him.  It  knows  that  to  attain  the  end  for  which  the  Creator 
gave  it  existence  is  the  full  reason  of  its  being.  Free  in  its  acts, 
it  does  not  feel  itself  free  from  the  will  of  its  Author.  It  feels  that 
if  it  can  act  against  Him  physically,  it  cannot  do  so  morally. 
Behold  the  sentiment  of  duty  at  work  in  it ! 

The  duty  of  attaining  its  end  is  natural  to  it,  because  it  comes 
from  the  fact  of  its  existence.  This  duty  gives  rise  to  another  : 
that  of  taking  the  road  that  leads  to  its  proper  end. 

Here  we  have  a  complex  duty  :  it  is  developed  in  many  other 
duties,  which  the  law  points  out  on  the  road. 

We  said  above  that  the  blind  creature  certainly  attains  its 
end,  and  this  certainty  we  derived  from  the  will  of  the  Creator, 
whom  nothing  can  resist.  Having  placed  the  creature  in  existence 
for  an  end,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  He  would  barricade  the 
road  thereto. 

This  arises  from  the  very  nature  of  God,  from  the  very  reasons 
of  creation,  previously  to  every  condition  of  a  creature.  The  same 
holds  good  of  an  intelligent  and  free  creature  :  for  it  also,  by  the 
will  of  its  Author,  the  road  ought  to  be  unobstructed. 

The  rational  creature  can,  therefore,  justly  require  means 
for  the  attainment  of  its  end,  in  a  word,  for  the  fulfilment  of  its 
duties.  This  exigency  is  called  a  right,  and  may  be  defined  as 
that  lawful  claim  which  a  rational  creature  has  for  the  use  of  means 
leading  to  an  end. 

We  move  on.  The  right  is  vivified  by  passing  into  action  : 
a  work  is  the  exercise  of  right.  But  here  a  question  arises  : 
are  there  no  limits  to  the  exercise  of  one’s  rights  ?  To  answer, 
we  must  dwell  for  a  little  on  the  idea  of  right,  and  consider  its 
entity  and  extent. 


THE  DUTIES  OF  MAN 


33 


The  former  is  its  existence — the  circuit  within  which  its  action 
can  be  developed  :  this  cannot  suffer  diminution  of  any  kind. 
The  latter  has  limits.  We  must,  however,  distinguish  right 
from  right. 

First,  there  is  a  perfect  right.  It  consists  in  the  use  of  those 
goods  which  are  indispensable  to  man  for  the  attainment  of  his 
proper  end.  To  admit  limits  to  the  exercise  of  this  right  is  to 
violate  the  course  that  God  has  appointed.  There  is  also  an 
imperfect  right,  and  it  consists  in  the  use  of  those  means  which, 
wffiile  efficacious  for  the  attainment  of  the  last  end,  are  not  neces¬ 
sary  or  indispensable.  These  certainly »  admit  of  limitations, 
when  coming  into  contact  with  the  development  of  other  rights. 
Such  may  be  : — 

1.  The  proper  rights  of  other  men.  All  men  have  the  same 
rights.  To  give  complete  development  to  all  is  impossible.  A 
just  measure  should  be  assigned  to  each. 

2.  Rights  of  the  same  individual,  but  of  a  superior  order.  Thus 
the  perfection  of  the  body  cannot  be  extended  so  far  as  to  be 
prejudicial  to  the  perfection  of  the  soul. 

3.  Rights  of  civil  society.  Society  derives  its  rights  from  its 
duty  of  promoting  the  common  good.  These  rights  are  superior 
to  individual  rights. 

Section  YI. — The  Duties  of  Man. 

The  idea  of  a  creature  without  destination  to  an  end  is  absurd. 
It  is  also  absurd  that  a  free  creature  should  not  subordinate 
its  actions  to  its  end.  Actions  are,  as  it  were,  the  creatures  of 
an  intelligent  creature.  They  ought,  therefore,  to  have  their  end, 
which  can  be  no  other  than  that  of  the  creature  itself.  Hence 
the  duty  of  man  so  to  direct  his  actions  that  they  may  be  referred 
to  the  attainment  of  his  last  end.  Behold  how  the  idea  of  duty 
follows  from  the  nature  of  man  ! 

And  this  idea  is  broad :  it  denotes  that  there  are  as  many 
duties  as  there  are  means  necessary  for  the  attainment  of  the 
end.  “  That  anything  has  to  be  done,  arises  from  the  necessity 
of  some  end.  Hence  it  is  manifest  that  it  is  of  the  nature  of  a 
precept  to  imply  order  to  an  end,  inasmuch  as  that  is  commanded 
which  is  necessary  or  expedient  to  an  end.  But  it  happens 
that  to  an  end  many  means  are  necessary  or  expedient.  And 
thus  there  may  be  various  precepts  regarding  various  things, 
inasmuch  as  they  are  directed  to  one  end.”  ( S .  Thom,  la  2ae, 
q.  99.) 

A  creature  that  attains  its  end  has  no  longer  reason  to  desire 
anything  :  it  is  perfect.  Man,  who  reasons,  ought  therefore 
to  endeavour  to  attain  his  end,  or  to  be  perfect. 

Considering  himself,  as  in  a  mirror,  man  knows  that  he  will  be 
perfect  when  he  fulfils  his  duties  : — 

Towards  God. — By  reason  man  knows  that  there  is  a  God, 

c 


34 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


liis  Creator  and  Preserver,  to  whom  he  should  render  a  pleasing 
service  with  all  his  strength  and  during  his  whole  life.  This  is 
the  basis  of  natural  religion,  which  appears  in  the  duty  of  prayer, 
when  man  recognises  the  Divine  greatness  and  his  own  weakness 
or  nothingness — in  the  duty  of  dedicating  some  time  to  the 
divine  worship — in  the  duty  of  complying  with  the  divine  will 
where  it  is  manifest.  But  it  is  proved  that  the  will  of  God  has  been 
manifested  by  revelation,  which  is,  as  it  were,  incarnate  in  the 
Catholic  Church.  It  is,  therefore,  a  duty  of  man  to  observe  the 
precepts  of  the  Church. 

Towards  Himself. — Man,  composed  of  body  and  soul,  is  troubled 
with  various  inclinations,  which  often  urge  him  to  incompatible 
goods.  In  this  struggle,  the  soul,  as  the  nobler  part,  ought  to 
obtain  the  victory.  Conti  remarked  that  man  is  like  a  sculptor, 
who  makes  of  himself  his  own  statue.  It  is  also  a  duty  of  man 
to  live  :  life  is  a  trust  confided  to  him,  which,  like  a  faithful 
soldier,  he  cannot  abandon.  There  is  only  one  absolute  master 
of  his  life — namely,  God. 

Towards  his  Neighbour. — Every  man  has  a  right  to  tend  to  his 
end,  using  earthly  goods  for  this  purpose.  Respect  for  this  right 
is  shown  in  a  number  of  duties  that  each  individual  owes  to  his 
fellow-men. 

Towards  Society  and  towards  his  Country. — Although  the  views 
of  man  should  be  turned  towards  eternity,  where  his  last  end  is 
found,  yet  the  inclinations  that  he  has  to  five  here  in  human 
society  tell  him  clearly  that  it  is  the  will  of  the  Creator  that  he 
should,  by  means  of  society,  arrive  at  his  end.  This  society 
will  be  a  true  society  when  it  leads  men  most  easily  towards  their 
end.  And  whose  business  is  it  to  make  it  such,  if  not  that  of  the 
individuals  who  compose  it  ?  They  have,  therefore,  social  duties. 
We  have  already  spoken  of  them.  Society,  as  we  shall  see,  is 
made  up  of  particular  societies,  which  are  States.  And  this  by 
the  will  of  the  Most  High.  These  particular  societies  are  ordained 
for  the  same  object — the  perfection  of  the  individual,  who  then 
feels  towards  them  a  warmer,  a  more  special  love.  Behold  the 
duties  towards  the  State,  the  nation,  the  country  that  is  one’s 
home  ! 

Among  the  duties  of  man,  we  must  also  place  that  of  labour. 
Yes,  every  man,  by  the  very  fact  that  he  is  a  man,  is  bound  to 
labour.  It  is  proved  thus. — Nature  has  placed  man  in  the  midst 
of  a  world  of  good  things,  but  such  good  things  that,  if  labour 
is  not  spent  upon  them,  they  cannot  satisfy  his  wants.  We 
have  here  a  general  destination,  that  of  all  worldly  goods  for  the 
service  of  man,  and  a  general  necessity,  that  labour  should  be 
spent  on  these  goods,  so  that  they  may  answer  their  purpose. 

Why  should  any  one  among  us  withdraw  from  these  conditions, 
and  enjoy  the  fruits  of  another’s  labour  ?  It  was  not  to  one 
man  alone,  but  to  every  man,  that  God  said,  In  the  sweat  of  thy 
face  shalt  thou  eat  bread .  St.  Paul  gave  an  example  of  untiring 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN 


35 


labour  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  accompanied  it  with  a  precept 
terrible  for  the  slothful :  If  any  man  will  not  work ,  neither  let  him 
eat. 

And  this  duty  every  man  has  towards  God,  who  made  labour 
a  precept ;  towards  himself,  on  account  of  the  duty  of  preserving 
his  life  ;  and  towards  society,  because  labour  is  a  social  ordinance. 
In  our  view,  therefore,  the  conduct  of  any  one  who  leads  an  idle 
and  unprofitable  life  is  indefensible. 


Section  VII. — The  Rights  of  Man. 

We  have  given  the  name  of  right  to  the  lawful  power  of  using 
anything.  Thus  understood,  the  idea  of  right  is  clearly  distinct 
from  that  of  duty.  To  be  bound  to  do  anything  is  a  step  farther 
forward  than  to  be  able  to  do  it ;  we  speak  of  juridical,  not  of 
physical  power.  We  have  seen  that,  for  an  intelligent  creature, 
the  last  end  is  the  root  of  duties.  It  is  equally  true  that  that  end 
furnishes  the  creature  with  the  right  or  power  of  using  the  means 
that  conduce  to  the  end.  The  end  is  proposed  to  the  creature 
by  God  ;  in  God,  therefore,  right  finds  its  root  and  its  strength. 

The  end  of  man  being  in  the  future  life,  he  has  in  the  present 
life  the  practice  of  duties  and  the  use  of  rights.  Of  the  rights  of 
man  we  must  make  a  short  review,  keeping  in  mind  what  we  have 
already  said  of  man. 

1.  The  right  to  his  own  dignity.  Man  ought  to  go  forward 
to  his  end,  preserving  that  personal  dignity  which  has  been 
bestowed  on  him  by  his  Author.  To  say  the  contrary  is  to  say 
that  God  wishes  man  undone,  denaturalised,  in  order  that  he  may 
be  worthy  of  his  end :  a  blasphemy,  as  everyone  sees,  against 
faith  and  reason.  Therefore  man  has  a  right  that  no  power  can 
subject  him  to  a  condition  of  life  that  is  unworthy  of  his  dignity 
as  a  rational  creature,  as  a  Christian  creature. 

Let  us  hear  the  Pope.  “  No  one  can  with  impunity  violate 
the  dignity  of  man,  which  God  Himself  treats  with  great  respect, 
nor  obstruct  the  way  to  that  perfection  which  is  ordained  for  the 
acquisition  of  eternal  life.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  man  cannot, 
even  by  his  own  free  choice,  renounce  treatment  according  to  his 
nature  and  give  up  his  soul  to  servitude ;  because  there  is  not 
question  here  of  rights  whose  exercise  is  free,  but  of  duties  towards 
God,  which  are  absolutely  inviolable.”  ( Rerum  novarum.) 

2.  The  right  of  fulfilling  the  duties  that  bind  him  to  God — to 
perfect  his  mind  with  the  knowledge  of  truth,  as  is  required 
that  he  may  make  himself  worthy  of  his  last  end,  and  capable  of 
performing  here  on  earth  that  function  which  God  has  assigned 
him. 

3.  A  right  to  the  use  of  the  things  of  this  world  in  the  mode 
and  measure  that  are  required  by  his  dignity  as  man  and  by  a 
co-ordination  of  human  actions  to  the  attainment  of  the  last  end. 


36 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


Man,  making  use  of  earthly  things,  has  a  right  to  satisfy  his  many 
wants ;  and  this  right  he  holds  from  his  Creator,  who,  in  the 
beginning  of  time,  subjected  the  earth  to  him  and  constituted 
him  its  king.  Now,  man  has  need  of  bread  to  restore  his  strength, 
as  well  as  of  clothing,  and  a  roof  to  defend  him  from  the  injuries 
of  the  weather  and  of  wild  beasts.  All  these  requirements  are 
included  in  the  expression,  Tie  must  live. 

Well,  everyone  knows  that  there  are  many  ways  of  living  ; 
between  high  living  and  low  living  there  is  an  immense  number 
of  degrees.  To  what  kind  of  living  has  man  a  right  ?  To  a  living 
that  is  worthy  of  him,  and  that  corresponds  to  the  exercise  of 
his  human  rights. 

Curci  says  :  “  Human  bread  means  that  he  (the  workingman) 
should  have  wholesome  and  sufficient  food,  clothing  according 
to  his  station  in  the  city — because  I  now  speak  only  of  artisans — 
and  all  that  not  only  for  himself,  but  also  for  his  family,  which, 
keeping  within  moderate  limits,  we  may  suppose  to  consist  of 
a  wife  and  two  little  children.”  ( Hi  un  Socialismo  Cristiano ,  p.  109.) 

4.  A  right  to  labour.  This  is  an  expression  with  which  much 
noise  has  been  made  through  the  loud  trumpet  of  the  socialists. 
What  do  we  say  ?  Does  there  exist  in  man,  and  because  he  is 
man,  a  right  to  labour  ? 

Let  us  lay  down  two  propositions,  which  are  beyond  all  con¬ 
troversy.  First,  every  man  has  a  right  to  live,  and,  therefore, 
to  the  use  of  those  means  without  which  he  cannot  live.  Second, 
every  man  has  a  duty  to  labour  :  labour  is  the  condition,  the 
natural  title  for  the  use  of  the  means  that  are  necessary  for  life. 
We  may,  therefore,  draw  the  conclusion  that,  as  man  has  a  right 
to  live,  and  as  labour  is  an  indispensable  condition  of  life,  therefore 
he  has  a  right  to  labour. 

But  has  every  unemployed  man  a  right  to  contend  with  his 
brother,  to  compel  his  neighbour  to  give  him  work  ?  Slowly ! 
Let  us  beware  of  hasty  steps.  The  simple  argument  that  we  have 
used  to  show  the  right  to  labour  will  clear  the  way  to  know  on 
whom  the  relative  duty  rests. 

In  regard  to  whom  does  man  possess  the  right  to  life  ?  Is  it 
the  person  who  is  by  nature  obliged  to  give  him  food,  &c.  ?  No, 
certainly.  This  burden  God  has  placed  on  mankind.  He  has 
entrusted  the  material  world  to  mankind  in  order  that,  being 
properly  worked,  it  may  give  an  abundance  of  fruits  to  men 
living  in  civil  society.  These  are  the  conditions  of  life  for  every 
man.  Every  man,  therefore,  has  a  right  to  labour  ;  but  his  claim 
falls  on  society.  In  other  words,  man  has  a  right  that  society 
should  be  so  ordered  that  there  may  be  labour  for  him,  and,  by 
means  of  labour,  a  support  or  a  living. 

We  willingly  admit  that  the  duty,  on  the  part  of  society,  of 
maintaining  these  conditions  of  life  cannot  be  fulfilled  without 
the  fulfilment  of  the  duty  of  labour,  which  is  incumbent  on  those 
who  are  able  for  it.  On  the  other  hand,  we  shall  have  occasion 


THE  EQUALITY  OF  MEN 


37 


to  show  that  the  rich  have  a  social  duty  to  traffic  in  their  posses¬ 
sions.  We  say  a  social  duty  :  a  duty  of  whose  fulfilment  society, 
and  not  a  private  individual,  has  a  right  to  demand  an  account, 
and,  in  case  of  necessity,  to  enforce  compliance.6 

Section  VIII. — The  Equality  of  Men. 

God  is  the  absolute  Master  of  all  things.  Every  mastership 
therefore,  even  the  least  over  the  least  of  creatures,  can  be 
delegated  or  granted  only  by  God. 

Man,  by  means  of  the  rights  that  God  has  granted  him,  has  also 
a  certain  mastership  over  the  things  that  surround  him.  Now, 
the  question  is,  have  all  men  the  same  rights  ?  To  clear  up  this 
question,  we  must  keep  in  mind  the  idea  that  we  have  formed 
of  right.  As  we  have  said,  right  is  the  lawful  power  of  using 
anything. 

Everything  is  used  for  an  end.  Whoever  goes  to  an  end  has  a 
mission,  and  we  may  regard  the  source  of  this  mission  as  the 
root  of  right.  Equality  of  roots  implies  equality  of  rights.  If, 
accordingly,  we  turn  to  human  nature,  as  it  is  equal  for  all  man¬ 
kind,  nobody  can  deny  that  all  mankind  have  the  same  natural 
rights. 

But  from  an  equality  of  nature  we  cannot  argue  to  an  equality 
of  the  acts  in  which  nature  is  revealed.  And  facts  prove  that 
if  all  mankind  have  the  same  nature,  not  all  have  therefore  the 
same  mode  of  existence.  One  is  of  a  low,  another  of  a  high, 
stature  ;  one  is  of  a  dull,  another  of  a  lively,  genius  ;  one  has  a 
strong  tendency  to  this  object,  another  to  that  object. 

These  are  facts,  evident  and  natural.  Now,  if  God  places 
a  fact,  His  voice  sounds  solemnly  in  that  fact ;  and  the  necessary 
consequences  of  theTact  are  no  less  an  expression  of  the  divine  will. 

Our  Bishop,  Monsignor  Bandi,  reasons  on  this  matter  as 
follows  : — 

“  Is  there  any  need  to  spend  words  in  showing  that  not  all 
men  have  the  same  faculties  in  the  same  measure  ?  Facts  prove 
it.  One  man  is  of  quick,  another  of  slow,  genius.  This  man’s 
memory  is  strong  ;  that  man’s  weak.  Titus  finds  much  pleasure 
in  mathematics  ;  Sempronius  holds  them  in  abhorrence.  Dante 
delights  in  poetry ;  our  Perosi  in  music.  Even  in  physical 
qualities,  how  many  differences  !  One  man  is  a  giant,  another 
a  dwarf.  This  man  is  most  dexterous,  that  man  most  awkward. 
One  man  is  most  quick  at  work,  but  rough  ;  another  is  slow, 
but  accurate  ;  a  third  cannot  succeed  at  all. 

“  Now,  everybody  knows  that  the  faculties  of  man  are  given 
by  nature.  Nature,  therefore,  intends  an  inequality  among 
men.  To  remove  it  from  the  world  is  an  impossibility,  for  every 
attempt  against  the  nature  of  things  fails.  The  said  inequality 
turns  to  the  advantage  not  only  of  individuals,  but  of  civil 
society ;  because  social  life  has  need  of  various  aptitudes  and 


38 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


occupations,  and  the  chief  motive  that  impels  men  to  engage  in 
such  occupations  is  the  disparity  of  their  states.  ( Rerum  nov.) 

“  Let  us  beware,  therefore,  of  generalising  too  much  on  the 
Gospel  doctrine,  all  men  are  equal.  Logic  and  facts  would  be 
against  us.  Men  have  indeed  a  substantial  and  most  noble 
equality  ;  but  it  is  realised  in  the  natural  fact  of  a  most  varied 
inequality.  The  equality  ought  not  to  be  exaggerated  at  the  cost 
of  the  inequality  ;  nor  the  latter  at  the  cost  of  the  former.  The 
pagan  world  forgot  the  natural  equality,  it  saw  nothing  in  men 
but  inequality,  and  it  created  the  opprobrium  of  slavery,  which, 
blind  to  human  dignity,  treated  men  as  mere  chattels.  Jesus 
Christ  came.  By  His  doctrine  He  threw  light  on  the  dignity 
of  all  men ;  and,  for  its  defence,  He  consigned  it  to  the  keeping 
of  His  Church.  And  the  Church  has  always  raised  her  voice 
against  those  who  degrade  and  oppress  the  weak.  Even  to-day, 
those  who  refuse  to  take  part  in  the  social  work  of  the  Redeemer, 
who  still  lives  in  His  Church,  attach  supreme  importance  to  human 
inequality,  and  make  labourers  the  slaves  of  capitalists ;  and 
behold,  Leo  XIII.  takes  up  the  defence  of  working  people  in  his 
encyclical  Rerum  novarum  !  Even  the  Socialists,  contrary  to 
truth,  and  therefore  contrary  to  Christ,  exaggerating  human 
equality  and  forgetting  the  inequality,  arrive  by  an  opposite 
way  at  the  same  extreme,  and  give  over  the  whole  human  family 
as  slaves  into  the  hands  of  the  State.”  ( Pastoral  on  the  Social 
Question.) 

We  hope,  in  regard  to  this  point,  that  it  will  be  observed  how 
the  natural  inequality  of  men  is  admirably  adapted  by  nature 
to  serve  in  strengthening  the  social  body.  The  need  that  every 
man  feels  of  the  help  of  his  brethren,  and  the  exuberance  of  means 
by  which  service  can  be  requited,  are  so  many  forces  that  run 
through  the  social  body  and  draw  it  to  unity.  We  will  conclude, 
therefore,  with  Leo  XIII.  in  his  Rerum  novarum  : — “  Let  this 
principle  be  established  in  the  first  place,  that  we  ought  to  endure 
the  condition  proper  to  humanity  :  to  remove  all  social  disparities 
from  the  world  would  be  impossible.  Socialists  indeed  attempt 
it,  but  every  attempt  against  the  nature  of  things  becomes  useless. 
For  by  nature  there  are  great  varieties  among  men  :  not  all  have 
the  same  talent,  the  same  skill ;  they  have  not  health  or  strength 
in  the  same  degree ;  and  from  these  inevitable  differences 
there  springs,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  the  difference  of 
social  conditions.” 

Section  IX. — Wants,  Desires,  and  Pleasures. 

Although  the  last  end  alone  has  a  perfect  enjoyment  for  man, 
yet  even  the  use  of  the  means  to  it  is  not  without  some  satisfac¬ 
tion,  God  wills  this,  certainly  with  the  view  that  man,  encouraged 
by  a  foretaste  of  future  joys,  may  seek  his  last  end  with  greater 
diligence. 


WANTS,  DESIRES,  AND  PLEASURES 


39 


Towards  the  goods  of  the  present  life,  which  are  means  to 
an  end,  there  is  a  multitude  of  inclinations  in  man,  so  that  the 
turning  towards  them  may  be  not  only  an  effect  of  reason,  but 
also  an  impulse  of  appetite.  Thus  there  are  inclinations  towards 
virtue,  towards  knowledge,  towards  food,  &c.  But  here  we  must 
make  a  distinction.  Some  of  the  inclinations  of  man  arise  from 
real  need,  which  he  must  satisfy,  if  he  wants  to  live ;  for  example, 
the  inclination  to  a  moderate  use  of  food,  drink,  and  rest.  Others 
from  a  natural  desire  of  happiness,  wherever  it  is  to  be  found  : 
such  are  ,the  inclinations  to  partake  of  more  dainty  dishes,  to  be 
clothed  in  a  more  fashionable  style,  to,  join  in  amusements,  to 
collect  whatever  may  make  his  abode  more  cheerful. 

Here  the  question  arises  :  in  what  measure  is  man  to  procure 
the  enjoyments  of  this  life  ?  The  answer  must  be  drawn  from 
that  rule  which  is  everything  for  the  creature — namely,  the  last 
end.  According  to  the  proportion  that  present  goods  have  with 
it,  we  shall  learn  the  duty,  the  lawfulness,  or  the  prohibition  of 
using  them.  Hence — 

1.  Man  ought  to  satisfy  his  real  wants,  because  it  is  a  duty  for 
him  to  live,  to  work,  to  act ;  and  that  he  may  do  so,  he  requires 
health  and  strength,  a  sound  mind  and  a  sound  body. 

2.  Man  can  take  some  satisfactions,  but  in  such  measure 
that  they  may  not  contrast  unfavourably  with  his  last  end. 

3.  Man  should  abstain  from  satisfying  those  inclinations  which 
would  place  him  in  opposition  with  goods  of  a  superior  order, 
with  the  will  of  God,  with  his  last  end. 

4.  Man  can,  through  a  desire  of  greater  spiritual  perfection, 
abstain  from  the  use  of  those  goods  which  are  not  necessary 
to  his  preservation,  or  to  his  action  for  his  last  end,  but  nobody 
has  a  right  to  impose  such  abstention  on  him. 

5.  Man — that  he  may  pronounce  safely  on  duty,  on  lawfulness, 
on  unlawfulness,  in  the  use  of  worldly  goods — ought  to  attend 
to  the  teaching  of  revealed  or  Christian  morality.  Man  is  a 
creature  of  God,  and  such  morality  is  the  voice  of  God.  To 
discuss  whether  man  ought  to  submit  or  not  would  be  absurd. 

6.  Many  are  the  goods  that  God  has  created  to  make  man’s 
dwelling  on  earth  beautiful  and  commodious.  Many  are  those 
which  are  to  be  acquired  by  the  labour  of  man,  and  many  by  the 
labour  of  civil  society.  As  for  the  first  kind,  every  man  has  a  right 
to  them,  in  the  measure  explained.  Likewise  to  the  second, 
because  they  are  the  fruit  of  his  labour  ;  and  also  to  the  third, 
because  the^  are  no  less  such.  As  we  shall  see,  society  is  a  work¬ 
shop  in  which  all  labour,  and  the  fruit  is  only  one.  Why,  then, 
if  all  labour,  should  any  individual  be  excluded  from  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  this  fruit  ?  Social  position  will  point  out  the  measure 
of  it,  according  to  justice ;  total  privation  of  it  is  certainly 
injustice.  A  case  may  arise  in  which  some  one  does  not  labour 
for  the  common  benefit.  If  by  crime,  privation  will  be  a  just 
punishment ;  if  by  inability,  privation  cannot  be  allowed.  If, 


40 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


therefore,  the  progress  of  time  brings  to  human  society  a  more 
commodious  manner  of  living,  a  greater  degree  of  wellbeing, 
every  man  has,  in  the  measure  aforesaid,  a  right  to  it. 


Themes. — A  diversity  of  conditions  may  be  reconciled  with  the  saying, 
we  are  all  brethren — In  the  present  state  of  society  the  condition  of  the 
proletariat  is  unnatural ;  what  ought  to  be  the  characteristics  of  a  social 
condition,  that  it  may  be  natural,  or  rather  that  it  may  not  be  unjust — 
The  right  of  the  individual  to  better  his  condition,  or  to  change  it. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  FAMILY. 

Section  I. — The  Cellule  of  Society. 

He  who,  in  reply  to  the  question,  What  are  the  elements  that 
compose  the  social  body  ?  should  answer  that  they  are  human 
individuals,  would  give  a  true  answer  indeed,  but  at  least  in¬ 
complete.  Because,  if  it  is  certain  that  human  individuals  are  the 
components  of  society,  it  is  also  certain  that  they  are  not  the 
proximate  components,  but  that  there  are  other  intermediary 
organic  beings,  who  bind  individuals  to  the  social  body. 

Now,  proceeding  from  the  more  to  the  less  simple,  we  find 
a  first  organism  of  the  greatest  importance,  which  is  the  Family. 
The  office  that  it  fulfils  in  the  world  tells  us  sufficiently  that  it 
accomplishes  a  design  of  the  Creator.  The  procreation  of  man 
could  have  occurred  without  the  Family,  as  among  irrational 
animals.  But  God  so  disposed  that  man  should  come  into  life 
not  formed,  but  to  be  formed.  The  task  of  truly  making  man 
belongs  to  the  Family.  God  has  entrusted  this  duty  to  the 
Family ;  and  he  strives  in  vain  who  attempts  to  deprive  the 
Family  of  it.  The  Family  therefore  has,  in  favour  of  the  human 
individual,  a  most  important  mission,  a  mission  that  it  is  sufficient 
for  us  to  have  pointed  out. 

But  the  Family  has  another  function,  which  it  is  our  duty  to 
explain  and  to  defend.  And  this  we  do  from  facts.  It  is  a  fact 
that  man  is  elaborated  in  the  bosom  of  the  Family,  which  after¬ 
wards  gives  him  mature  and  full  of  life  to  society.  Society, 
therefore,  ought  to  regard  the  Family  as  the  source  of  its  life, 
well  convinced  that  it  will  flourish  or  decay  according  as  the 
Family  does  so. 

We  showed  elsewhere  that  the  moral  virtues,  which  adorn 
associates,  are  the  foundations  of  a  social  life  truly  flourishing. 
But  who  is  to  infuse  these  virtues,  if  not  the  Family,  which 
produces  man  ?  The  social  body  should  therefore  recognise  in 
Families  a  natural  bellows,  whose  wholesome  breath  nourishes 
its  own  vitality. 


THE  CELLULE  OF  SOCIETY 


41 


Let  not  the  socialists  tell  us  that  a  substitute  for  this  educational 
function  of  the  Family  may  be  found  in  public  education,  when 
guardians  and  teachers  take  the  place  of  parents.  If  any  one 
seriously  asserts  these  things,  he  does  not  know  that,  for  the 
efficacy  of  education,  nature  itself  has  laid  a  foundation  in  the 
natural  relations  that  exist  between  parents  and  children,  by  the 
very  fact  that  the  latter  have  received  life  from  the  former. 

Now,  this  foundation  admits  of  no  substitute.  The  sweet 
looks  of  a  mother  or  the  severe  ones  of  a  father  are  always  of 
more  avail  than  a  handsome  premium  or  a  heavy  punishment. 

But,  even  granting  that  this  educational  function  could  be 
fulfilled  otherwise,  the  Family  would  always  have  a  great  social 
importance.  Not  because  the  Family  is  for  society,  but  its 
stability  contributes  very  much  to  the  stability  of  society.  The 
Family  is  that  society  of  which  man,  before  he  is  long  in  the 
world,  feels  himself  a  part.  Here  the  natural  bond  habituates 
him  to  do  good  to  his  brethren,  to  sacrifice  himself  for  them. 
Here  the  sentiment  of  sociability  buds  and  blossoms,  as  if 
inadvertently,  together  with  the  development  of  the  intellectual 
faculties. 

“  From  such  ( Christian )  marriages,  cities  can,  with  all  reason, 
expect  a  stock  and  succession  of  citizens  who  are  animated  with 
the  best  sentiments,  and  who,  accustomed  to  the  love  and  service 
of  God,  regard  it  as  a  strict  duty  to  obey  those  invested  with 
just  and  lawful  authority,  to  practise  benevolence  towards  all, 
to  give  offence  to  none.”  (Encyc.  Arcanum.) 

Thus  the  Family  appears  by  its  nature  the  first  cellule  of  the 
social  body — a  warm  cellule — a  perennial,  ever  new  source  of  life. 
It  may  be  said  that  nature  has,  in  forming  society,  acted  like  a 
gardener,  who,  wishing  to  make  a  large  bunch  of  flowers,  gathers 
up  many  little  nosegays,  and  binds  them  into  one.  If  the  string 
is  untied,  all  the  odoriferous  nosegays  of  the  superb  bouquet 
are  scattered  about.  It  is  therefore  a  matter  of  social  utility 
that  the  condition  of  the  Family  should  be  secure  and  prosperous. 

Mons.  d’Hulst  says  : — “  The  Family,  viewed  under  this  aspect, 
becomes  the  foundation  of  society.  What  is  a  nation  but  a  large 
Family,  a  union  of  Families  ?  And  how  could  the  assembled 
groups  preserve  their  unity  if  the  elementary  parts  of  which  they 
are  composed  lost  their  particular  unity  ?  Ah,  the  advocates 
of  extermination  are  not  deceived  herein — those  men  whose  wild 
attempts  are  the  terror  of  the  world,  and  whose  threats  weigh 
like  a  nightmare  on  the  close  of  a  century  that  considers  itself 
strong !  They  know  well  that,  to  ruin  social  order,  it  is  not 
enough  to  overthrow  a  government,  because  governments  return, 
but  it  is  necessary  to  ruin  the  Family,  which,  once  destroyed, 
cannot  without  much  difficulty  be  reconstructed.”  ( Conf .  I.) 

It  is  seen  hence  how  much  the  fate  of  civil  society  is  bound 
up  with  that  of  Families.  “  Matrimony  was  not  instituted 
merely  or  even  chiefly  for  the  individual ;  its  end  was  above  all 


42 


THE  ELEMENTS  OE  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


to  establish  and  to  continue  human  society.  Practically  indeed, 
here  as  everywhere  else,  the  superior  end  first  intended  in  its 
institution  is  usually  the  last  on  which  people  reflect.  But  no' 
one  is  ever  justified  in  neglecting  or  excluding  that  end ;  and 
if  anyone  attempts  to  do  so,  the  public  authority  is  to  be  mindful 
of  it  and  to  defend  it.  The  Family  is  without  doubt  an 
important  factor,  not  merely  by  private  right,  but  by  public  right. 
Never  indeed  has  a  well-ordered  society  been  seen  in  which  great 
regard  was  not  shown  to  it.  And  therefore  political  authority 
has  a  supreme  interest,  an  inalienable  right,  a  serious  duty,  to 
occupy  itself  with  useful  questions  in  regard  to  the  Family, 
especially  when  they  are  connected  with  the  public  good.  If  it 
interferes  too  much,  it  passes  the  limits  of  its  competency.  It 
acts  without  right ;  or  rather,  it  acts  with  injury  to  the  highest 
rights.”  (Weiss,  I.  c.,  p.  289.) 

For  the  rest,  Leo  XIII.,  in  the  encyclical  Quod  apostolici  muneris , 
has  already  said  of  domestic  society  that  it  is  the  beginning  of 
every  city  and  of  every  kingdom. 

Section  II. — Institution  of  the  Family. 

Man  has  an  inclination  to  be  the  father  of  children,  who  are, 
as  it  were,  a  continuation  of  his  own  existence,  and  to  whom, 
the  last  evening  of  his  life  having  arrived,  he  may  leave  whatever 
treasure  he  has  at  his  disposal.  Man  feels  the  need  of  intimate 
affections,  by  which  the  soul  may  take  counsel  for  itself,  may  un¬ 
bosom  itself  without  fear,  without  reserve,  without  circumspection. 
Man  also  finds  in  himself  a  kind  of  incompleteness,  whereby  he 
seems  less  fit  for  certain  duties,  so  that  if  he  fulfils  them,  there  is  a 
want  of  naturalness  or  spontaneity  about  them ;  and  he  sees 
this  incompleteness  integrated  by  a  like  incompleteness,  which 
is  found  in  the  other  sex,  naturally  fitted  for  special  duties,  and 
naturally  unfitted  for  others.  All  this  leads  instinctively  to  the 
union  of  man  and  woman. 

This  inclination  of  man  may  well  be  placed  among  those  which 
he  has  a  right  to  satisfy  ;  but  it  is  not  a  duty  for  him  to  do  .so, 
being  able  to  arrive  alone  at  his  last  end. 

By  the  union  of  man  and  woman,  which  is  called  matrimony, 
domestic  society,  or  the  Family,  is  begun. 

Whence  is  the  institution  of  the  Family  ?  The  answer  to  this 
question  ought  to  come,  as  a  conclusion,  from  the  preceding 
section.  We  there  showed  that  the  Family  fulfils  the  intentions 
of  nature  for  the  advantage  of  the  individual  and  of  society. 
Therefore,  nature  instituted  it,  established  it  for  the  discharge 
of  certain  duties. 

From  this  conclusion  many  truths  spring,  like  shoots  from  a 
plant.  It  is  the  groundwork  of  a  long  disquisition  that  might 
be  made  about  the  Family,  for  which  this  is  not  the  place. 


HUSBAND,  WIFE,  AND  CHILDREN 


43 


Because,  if  the  Family  is  an  institution  of  nature,  such  also  are 
the  conditions  that  accompany  the  Family,  and  that  are  required 
for  the  accomplishment  of  its  functions. 

Thus  we  learn — (i.)  that  no  human  authority  can  undo  or 
transform  the  Family,  for  there  is  no  authority  higher  than 
that  of  God ;  (ii.)  that  the  unity  and  stability  of  the  Family  are 
gifts  intrinsic  to  its  nature  ;  and  (iii.)  that  divorce,  tending  to  the 
dissolution  of  the  Family,  is  condemned  not  only  by  natural 
law,  but  also  by  social  law. 

We  infer  that  the  Family  is  a  natural  state,  which  has  its  own 
special  existence,  its  own  special  end,  and  therefore  its  own 
special  rights  and  duties. 

Christianity  throws  a  clearer  and  better  light  on  the  Family. 
According  to  it,  the  Family,  besides  being  an  institution  of  nature, 
is  one  of  grace.*  Jesus  Christ,  recalling  matrimony  to  its  first 
institution,  raised  it  to  the  dignity  of  a  sacrament.  As  such, 
matrimony  has  rights  not  only  natural,  but  also  sacramental, 
of  which  no  one  can  be  a  judge  outside  the  Church,  which 
continues  on  earth  the  mission  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Very  different  is  the  idea  that  liberal  sociology  forms  of  the 
Family.  For  it  the  Family  has  nothing  natural  except  that  it 
satisfies  the  natural  inclinations  of  man.  Regulated  by  these, 
it  is  not  a  state,  having  its  own  end,  its  own  rights,  its  own  duties, 
but  a  something  merely  accidental.  Man  adopts  it  that  he  may 
satisfy  his  passions,  that  he  may  be  pleased  by  the  sight  of  a  wife 
and  children,  that  he  may  enjoy  domestic  comforts. 

The  liberals  have  also  created  a  state  :  a  state  that  lasts  as 
long  as  it  suits,  as  long  as  individuals  derive  advantage  or  pleasure 
from  it.  The  step  is  then  easy  to  divorce.  More  logical  still  is 
the  legitimation  of  free  love,  which  the  socialists  advocate. 
Would  you  judge  them  wrong,  ye  liberals  ? 


Section  III. — Husband,  Wife,  and  Childken. 

The  subject  is  often  discussed,  but,  we  must  say,  with  much 
want  of  care  and  consideration.  Man  and  woman,  beginning  to 
constitute  a  Family,  change  very  much  their  condition.  This  is 
clear.  They  begin  to  form  a  state,  and  they  must  abide  the 
consequences.  The  Family  has  a  special  end,  which  is  that  of 
giving  worthy  children  to  society  and  to  God — that  is,  children 
well-directed  on  the  road  that  leads  to  their  last  end. 

This  end  is  to  be  attained  by  common  co-operation.  But 

*  A  moderate  share  of  material  wellbeing  is  very  necessary  for  spiritual 
wellbeing.  To  take  an  example,  who  does  not  see  that  if  several  poor 
families  are  crowded  together  in  a  small  room,  as  often  happens,  especially 
in  towns,  the  danger  for  morals  is  very  great  ?  Whereas,  if  each  family 
had  a  separate  dwelling,  of  convenient  size,  and  at  least  some  degree  of 
comfort,  virtue  could  easily  flourish  there. — Trans. 


44 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


who  will  preside  over  all  ?  Nature  tells  us  :  the  man,  as  the 
more  capable  to  govern,  to  defend,  to  represent.  The  head 
of  the  Family  is,  therefore,  man  :  it  is  he  that  should  guide  the 
Family,  it  is  he  that  should  represent  it  before  society.  The 
husband  is  accordingly  the  head  of  the  wife.  It  is  written 
(Eph.  v.  23),  the  husband  is  the  head  of  the  wife,  as  Christ  is  the 
head  of  the  Church :  and  therefore  St.  Paul  commands  wives 
to  be  obedient  to  their  husbands. 

This  is  true,  but  in  how  far  are  they  to  obey  ?  We  wish  this 
question  to  be  well  observed,  because  there  can  be  exaggeration 
here.  The  husband  and  the  wife,  entering  a  new  state,  do  not 
lose  their  own  personality,  human  or  Christian.  If  therefore 
they  find  new  relations,  these  ought  not  to  prejudice  the  rights 
and  duties  that  they  have  as  human  beings  and  as  Christians. 
In  Genesis  (ii.  20),  we  find  a  true  idea  of  what  the  wife  ought  to 
be  with  regard  to  the  husband,  a  heifer  like  himself.  This  means 
that  the  husband  has  never  any  authority  to  abolish  the  rights 
and  duties  which  the  wife  has  as  a  rational  creature  or  as  a  Christian. 

And  it  is  here,  in  this  doctrine,  which  Christianity  has  main¬ 
tained  and  still  boldly  maintains  against  the  mania  for  concen¬ 
trating  all  rights  in  man,  that  woman  ought  to  recognise  her 
rehabilitation,  her  true  emancipation. 

Let  her  think  of  it.  If,  by  withdrawing  from  the  laws  of  dis¬ 
cretion  that  Christian  morality  imposes,  she  withdraws  from 
the  Church,  she  exchanges  the  yoke  of  God  for  that  of  man. 

The  same  is  to  be  said  of  children  who  have  arrived  at  the  use 
of  reason.  Although  subject  to  paternal  authority,  they  have 
rights  and  duties  that  cannot  be  disregarded. 

The  Sovereign  Pontiff,  who  defends  the  rights  of  all,  refers 
to  these  matters  thus  : — 

“  In  like  manner  the  right  of  matrimony  was  established 
equal  and  one  for  all,  taking  away  the  difference  that  was  made 
by  the  ancients  between  slaves  and  free-born.  The  rights  of  the 
husband  and  the  wife  were  made  equal.  As  St.  Jerome  says, 
among  us  that  which  is  not  lawful  to  women  is  not  lawful  to  men, 
the  same  obligations  are  for  like  conditions.  These  rights  were 
confirmed  by  mutual  benevolence  and  reciprocal  offices.  The 
dignity  of  women  was  guaranteed  and  safeguarded.  It  was 
forbidden  to  the  husband  to  inflict  the  penalty  of  death  on  the 
adulterous  wife,  or  to  violate  by  lust  his  sworn  fidelity. 

“It  is  likewise  of  great  importance  that  the  Church  placed 
limits,  when  necessary,  to  the  paternal  power,  so  that  there  should 
be  no  encroachment  on  the  reasonable  liberty  of  sons  and 
daughters  who  desired  marriage  ;  that,  by  her  decrees,  nuptials 
within  certain  degrees  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  were  declared 
null,  so  that  the  supernatural  love  of  married  persons  might 
extend  to  a  vaster  field ;  that  she  was  careful  to  remove  as  far 
as  possible  from  marriages  all  error  and  violence  and  fraud  ;  that 
she  wished  to  preserve  the  sanctity  of  the  nuptial  chamber,  the 


THE  EIGHTS  AND  DUTIES  OF  THE  FAMILY  45 


security  of  persons,  the  dignity  of  marriages,  and  the  rights 
of  religion.”  (Encyc.  Arcanum.)1 


Section  IV. — The  Rights  and  Duties  of  the  Family. 

The  Family,  having  a  special  existence  and  a  special  end,  it 
must  have  special  duties  and  special  rights,  which  are  sacred 
and  inalienable,  no  less  so  than  those  of  an  individual. 

If  the  Family  is  intended  to  give  citizens  to  society,  it  must  have 
the  duty  and  the  right  to  support,  to  instruct,  to  educate  its 
own  children.  Is  it  right  for  the  father  of  a  Family  to  let 
another  impose  a  method  of  instruction,  a  kind  of  education, 
even  though  this  other  should  be  the  State  ?  The  Family  is 
anterior  to  the  State,  and,  as  individuals  do  not  lose  their  special 
rights  in  the  Family,  so  the  Family  does  not  lose  them  by  becom¬ 
ing  part  of  the  State. 

Liberalism  denying  to  the  Family  any  existence  outside  of  that 
granted  by  the  State,  it  is  natural  that  no  other  rights  should  be 
recognised  in  it  than  those  which  the  State  gives.  And  thus  there 
is  a  continual  intrusion  of  the  State  into  the  Family,  every  day 
bringing  new  rules,  as  if  sooner  or  later  a  rule  might  be  expected 
about  the  manner  of  laying  the  table. 

The  socialists  push  matters  as  far  as  logic  can  go.  They  say  : 
If  the  Family  is  only  what  the  State  wishes,  let  ns  be  done  with  it ; 
let  us  consign  boys  and  girls  to  a  great  public  school,  in  which  the 
State  can  instruct  them,  educate  them,  bring  them  up  as  it  pleases. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Commune  *  has  also  its  rights  in  regard 
to  Families,  of  which  it  consists. 

The  welfare  that  it  procures  for  Families  should  be  a  work  of 
co-operation  with  them — a  co-operation  that  the  Commune, 
in  the  measure  imposed  on  it  by  the  nature  of  its  functions, 
has  a  right  to  determine.  This  includes  the  right  to  command, 
to  fix,  to  arrange,  and  to  collect  imposts,  according  to  the  rules  of 
justice,  and  sometimes  also  to  require  that  Families  should  submit 
to  the  Commune  the  exercise  of  their  right  to  property.  All  this 
is  to  be  observed  within  the  limit  set  forth  by  us,  that  the  Com¬ 
mune  is  not  at  all  an  arbiter  of  the  sacred  rights  of  Families,  but 
only  a  guardian  and  promoter  of  the  wellbeing  of  all,  though  at 
times  this  may  be  attained  only  by  a  serious  sacrifice  for  some. 


Themes. — Why  the  accidental  and  undeniable  inconveniences  of 
matrimonial  indissolubility  are  to  be  tolerated,  and  how  they  do  not  justify 
divorce — Divorce  is  a  consequence  of  unchristian  theories  regarding  the 
Family. 

*  The  Continental  Commune,  in  a  local  sense,  is  much  like  a  Parish  with 
us.  The  duties  of  its  administrators  correspond  in  many  respects  to  those 
of  our  District  Councils.  From  ten  to  twenty  Communes  form  a  Canton. 
Local  Councils,  it  has  been  happily  said,  are  the  Primary  Schools  of  freedom. — 
Trans. 


46 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


CHAPTEB  IV. 

THE  COMMUNE. 

Section  I. — Union  of  Families. 

The  Family  is  immediately  intended  to  aid  the  work  of 
individuals ;  as  we  have  seen,  it  makes  a  step  by  itself  in  the 
scale  of  social  beings.  But  the  Family  is  of  necessity  a  small 
association,  limited  by  the  claims  of  the  closest  relationship.  It 
soon  feels  the  weakness  of  its  powers,  and  desires  to  strengthen 
them  by  union  with  other  Families.  Such  union  has  been  made 
from  the  earliest  times,  and  it  is  realised  in  the  Commune. 

What  then  is  the  Commune  ?  An  Aggregation  of  Families. 

Topographical  position,  facility  of  communication,  similarity 
of  productions,  identity  of  habits,  community  of  interests,  &c., 
determine  the  several  groups  of  Families,  and  mark  the  boundaries 
of  the  various  Communes.  A  number  of  Families,  who  associate 
with  a  view  to  co-operation  in  the  same  district,  which  forms 
the  basis  of  a  community,  are  therefore  the  immediate  factors 
of  the  Commune. 

But  whence  is  its  origin — from  nature  or  from  man  ? 

Communes  are  a  necessity  that  Families  may  flourish.  In 
the  work  of  the  Commune  they  feel  a  power  close  to  them,  which 
is  almost  their  own — a  great  power,  which  assists  them,  defends 
them,  promotes  their  prosperity.  The  human  individual  has 
need  of  the  assistance  of  the  Commune.  In  point  of  fact,  besides 
relations  with  domestics  and  neighbours  by  an  unavoidable 
necessity,  there  are  other  relations  for  which  the  interference 
of  the  Family  does  not  suffice,  and  which  at  the  same  time  cannot 
be  considered  nor  safeguarded,  nor  even  perceived,  by  the  distant 
government  of  the  State.  The  work  of  the  Commune  is  therefore 
truly  required.  And  when  the  necessity  of  things  calls  for  an 
institution,  it  may  well  be  said  that  this  institution  has  its  origin 
in  nature. 

As  with  all  natural  things,  it  is  therefore  true  that  Communes 
have  a  special  existence  and  personality,  have  special  rights  and 
duties,  have  a  special  end.  To  try  to  do  without  them  is  to  do 
violence  to  nature.  A  capital  criterion  this ,  said  Toniolo  at  the 
Congress  of  Padua,  which  is  to  he  applied  in  all  its  consequences , 
even  -financial. 

Moreover,  nature,  in  assigning  to  the  Commune  a  special 
existence,  with  a  special  end,  has  implicitly  shown  what  ought 
to  be  the  conditions  of  its  existence.  These  conditions  ought  to 
be  observed,  if  we  wish  the  Commune  to  attain  its  object — the 
good  of  individuals,  of  Families,  of  Society.  “  Because,”  says 
Leo  XIII.,  “  it  is  a  law  divinely  sanctioned  that  things  instituted 
by  nature  and  by  God  are  found  by  us  so  much  the  more  useful 


AUTONOMY  OF  THE  COMMUNE 


47 


and  salutary  as  they  remain  entire  and  immutable  in  their  natural 
state.  God,  the  Creator  of  all  things,  knew  well  what  was 
expedient  for  every  institution  and  its  maintenance,  and  by  His 
will  and  mind  arranged  all  in  such  a  manner  that  each  should 
conveniently  attain  its  end.  But  if  the  rashness  and  wickedness 
of  men  try  to  change  or  to  overthrow  the  order  of  things  providen¬ 
tially  established,  then  even  things  instituted  with  the  highest 
wisdom  and  greatest  advantage  begin  to  do  harm  or  cease  to  be 
of  any  use,  whether  it  is  that  by  change  they  lose  the  power  of 
doing  good  or  rather  because  God  wishes  to  punish  the  pride 
and  audacity  of  mortals.” 


Section  II. — Autonomy  of  the  Commune. 

Whatever  is  intended  by  nature  for  a  certain  scope  has  a  good 
right  to  gather  round  it  all  those  resources  with  which  nature 
has  provided  it  for  the  attainment  of  that  scope.  It  has  there¬ 
fore  a  right  not  to  be  opposed  on  its  way,  a  right  not  to  be  trifled 
with,  a  right  to  defend  itself.  This  means  that  it  is  independent 
or  autonomous. 

Autonomy  is  of  necessity  to  be  granted  to  the  Commune.  It 
follows  as  a  logical  consequence  from  what  we  have  said  in  general 
regarding  it.  Counsellor  Invrea  describes  autonomy  as  “  the 
liberty  that  the  Commune  ought  to  have  in  working  for  its  own 
ends,  and  that  naturally  implies  the  faculty  of  giving  laws  within 
certain  limits,  by  means  of  proper  authority,  regularly  constituted. 
And  this  autonomy  ought  not  to  have  any  other  limits  than  those 
which  are  required  by  a  necessary  harmony  with  the  general 
ends  of  the  State,  and  with  the  obligation  that  the  State  has  to 
remove  abuses — limits  that  evidently  vary  from  time  to  time 
and  from  place  to  place,  but  always  give  room  for  a  large  communal 
autonomy  ”  (II  Commune,  &c.). 

It  is  understood,  therefore,  that  the  question  of  autonomy  is 
one  of  preservation  or  destruction,  life  or  death,  for  Communes. 

That  deleterious  force  which  passed  through  social  life,  and  un¬ 
did  as  much  as  possible  the  organisations  that  it  met  on  its  way, 
dragging  with  it  every  reason  of  justice  and  right,  and  concen¬ 
trating  all  in  the  State,  if  it  did  not  wholly  destroy  Communes, 
left  them  only  a  little  life. 

The  Commune,  a  natural  organisation,  is  radically  destroyed 
by  admitting  that  its  every  originating  cause,  its  every  function, 
its  every  right,  is  a  concession  of  the  State. 

In  our  work  .of  social  reconstruction,  we  must  seek  and  earnestly 
seek  the  reconstitution  of  our  Communes :  we  must  seek  their 
full  autonomy. 

The  Catholic  Congress  of  Padua  declared  that,  according  to  an 
analysis  of  the  idea  of  public  bodies  (communal  and  provincial), 
these  bodies  do  not  appear  as  affiliations  from  the  central  authority 


48 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


of  the  State,  but  rather,  logically  and  historically,  as  so  many 
organisations  having  an  origin  and  a  life  of  their  own  ;  and  that, 
therefore,  the  powers  belonging  to  them  for  civil  ends  cannot  be 
regarded  as  essentially  a  delegation  of  the  State.  (Atti  del 
Congresso,  p.  266.) 

As  a  consequence,  the  autonomy  of  the  Commune  requires 
two  things  : — (i.)  A  right  to  elect  its  own  councillors.  That  the 
State  should  appoint  rulers  for  a  Commune,  or,  with  vain  and 
ridiculous  pretexts,  select  the  members  of  a  municipal  council, 
is  repugnant  to  communal  autonomy,  (ii.)  Freedom  of  adminis¬ 
tration.  Communes  at  the  present  day  are  treated  worse  than 
minors.  Their  deliberations  have  no  force  of  themselves,  but 
from  tutorial  authority,  which,  instead  of  favouring  them,  destroys 
(hem  in  an  autocratic  manner. 

We  have  said  that  we  do  not  deny  to  the  State  an  inspection 
and  control  of  the  acts  of  the  Commune  ;  but  we  maintain  in  the 
following  section  that  there  are  limits  to  such  interference. 

Section  III. — Functions  of  the  Commune. 

What  are  the  functions  of  the  Commune  we  must  learn  from 
those  social  necessities  which  make  us  assert  the  natural  existence 
of  this  important  organism.  The  Commune  that  provides  for 
these  necessities  fulfils  its  duties.  Here  it  is  well  to  remember 
that  the  Commune  does  not  commit  that  abuse  towards  individuals 
and  families  which  the  State  commits  to  their  prejudice.  The 
Commune  is  intended  to  complete  the  work  of  inferior  bodies, 
not  to  be  a  substitute  for  them  :  where  their  work  ends,  its 
work  properly  begins. 

It  enters,  therefore,  into  the  duties  of  the  Commune  to  provide 
schools  and  teachers,  good  roads,  sufficient  light,  and  everything 
else  suited  for  the  convenience  of  the  district,  and  all  this  at  the 
least  possible  sacrifice  to  families. 

In  some  cases  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Commune  to  become  a 
substitute  for  the  family ;  but  why  ?  Because,  through  the 
fault  or  the  misfortune  of  the  family,  its  work  fails.  Thus  it 
pertains  to  the  Commune  to  take  care  of  orphans,  to  assist  the 
needy,  to  provide  medical  attendance  for  the  poor. 

Invrea  says : — “  The  idea  of  functions  relating  to  the 
Commune  is  evidently  an  idea  that  varies  according  to  circum¬ 
stances.  We  may  consider  as  functions  normally  relating  to  the 
Commune  those  which  correspond  to  local  wants — that  is,  wants 
which  can  be  sufficiently  satisfied  by  communal  organisation.” 

In  short,  the  action  of  the  Commune  ought  to  be  concerned 
with  local  interests,  limited  on  one  side  by  the  inborn  rights  of 
inferior  bodies,  and  on  the  other  by  the  amount  of  its'  strength, 
which  may  require  the  aid  of  a  higher  body,  powerful  though 
remote. 

The  following  words  of  Toniolo  at  the  Congress  of  Padua 


FUNCTIONS  OF  COMMUNE  TOWARDS  WORKPEOPLE  49 


throw  light  on  this  point : — “  Our  Communes  were  bodies  legally 
perfect,  over  which  at  a  later  period  (and  history  records  with 
what  a  difficult  struggle)  the  State — that  is  to  say,  a  higher  political 
body,  raised  itself,  when,  in  a  region  comprising  many  Communes 
and  other  autonomous  bodies,  a  distinction  was  made  between 
the  interests  of  a  large  sphere  and  those  of  a  small  one.  Only 
then,  and  with  a  laborious  process,  began  the  work  of  specifica¬ 
tion  ;  but  in  this  sense  that  a  fulness  of  powers  and  rights  continued 
to  be  recognised  in  local  bodies,  and  only  slowly  and  gradually 
was  a  part  of  the  powers  transferred  to  the  State  with  higher 
authority,  as  if  integrating  the  powers  ,of  the  Commune.  And 
thus  to  the  legislative  faculties  of  public  and  private  right— to  a 
civil,  economical,  moral,  and  politico-military  administration  of 
Communes  and  local  bodies — there  was  added  a  second  legislation, 
as  well  as  a  new  kind  of  territorial  administration,  which  at 
length  came  to  prevail.  This  is  an  historical  proof  that  the  State 
in  general  drew’  the  elements  of  its  historical  development  from 
the  Communes,  and  not  vice  versa .”  ( Atti  del  Congresso,  p.  248.) 

We  see  therefore  how  well  grounded  on  solid  social  reasons  is 
the  agitation  made,  and  not  by  Catholics  alone,  to  obtain  a  large 
measure  of  decentralisation  in  favour  of  the  Communes,  which  the 
grasping  State  of  the  present  day  reduces  to  a  condition  of  little 
service. 

From  this  idea  of  communal  functions,  it  also  follows  that  the 
views  of  those  who  give  the  Commune  only  an  economical  task 
are  wrong. 

The  Commune  ought  to  integrate  the  work  of  families  under  it, 
taken  as  they  are,  with  whatever  interests  they  naturally  have. 
But,  besides  economical  interests,  they  have  moral  and  religious 
ones,  the  guardianship  and  promotion  of  which  the  Commune 
should  take  to  heart. 

An  interest  (we  confine  ourselves  to  one)  that  touches  the  family 
in  its  most  sacred  rights,  is  that  of  public  elementary  instruction. 
If  there  are  children  of  families,  it  is  consequently  the  right  of 
families  to  give  them  such  education  and  instruction  as  they 
choose.  As  the  work  of  families  is  to  be  integrated  by  the  more 
ponderous  work  of  a  greater  organism,  this  can  only  be  the 
Commune,  which — the  community  being  like  a  large  family — is 
in  a  position  to  know  the  desires  of  the  families  affiliated  to  it,  and 
to  satisfy  them,  according  to  the  circumstances  and  the  faculties 
of  the  families.  And  yet  is  not  an  attempt  often  made  to  con¬ 
centrate  also  in  the  State  this  task  essentially  communal  ? 

Section  IV. — Functions  of  the  Commune  towards  Work¬ 
people. 

The  demands  on  our  time  require  that,  referring  to  the  functions 
of  the  Commune  in  globo,  we  speak  of  one  in  particular,  and  it  is 
that  which  ought  to  be  exercised  towards  poor  workpeople. 

D 


50 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


The  idea  of  society,  which  we  have  set  forth  in  its  place,  implies 
that,  on  the  part  of  higher  bodies  and  classes,  there  should  be  a 
particular  care  and  protection  shown  towards  those  who  are  in 
need  of  help. 

Nobody  will  deny  that  workpeople,  however  employed,  even 
those  who  live  by  the  fruits  of  their  own  labour,  especially  in  the 
present  state  of  social  disorganisation,  are  to  be  regarded  as  the 
weakest  elements  of  society. 

Account  being  made  of  these  facts,  there  arises  in  the  Commune 
an  obligation  to  care  in  some  manner  for  the  labouring  classes,  and 
to  give  them  work  by  which  they  may  become  more  prosperous. 
And  this  obligation  urges  more  now  that  we  have  to  lament  a  sad 
indifference  on  the  part  of  the  State.  It  would  likewise  press, 
even  if  the  State  fulfilled  its  duty — either  because  the  Commune  is 
nearer  to  the  workpeople  and  knows  their  ills  and  the  remedies 
for  them  better,  or  because  the  State  would  always  require  the 
aid  of  a  local  body  to  direct  it  in  different  cases. 

Now,  workpeople  are  found  in  a  triple  position  before  the 
Commune.  The  first  is  when  they  are  directly  employed  and 
paid  by  it.  The  number  of  these  is  increasing  every  day,  because 
the  municipalising  of  public  services  is  gaining  favour.  The 
second  is  when  the  system  of  “  farming  ”  prevails  with  the 
Commune.  Then  the  workpeople  depend  directly  on  the 
“  farmer  ”  or  contractor,  and  indirectly  on  the  Commune.  The 
third  is  that  which  they  have  with  the  Commune  by  the  very  fact  of 
being  members  of  the  community,  not  having  business  relations 
with  any  local  body. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Commune  has  different  obligations 
towards  the  workpeople  according  to  the  different  positions  that 
they  occupy  before  it. 

In  the  first  case,  the  Commune,  besides  being  the  Commune,  is 
also  the  Undertaker,*  and  besides  being  the  Undertaker  is  also  the 
Master  of  the  workpeople.  It  has  therefore  to  practise  a  triple 
duty  towards  them. 

That  constant  and  loving  patronage  wfiiich  a  master  should 
exercise  over  his  servants,  the  Commune  owes  to  its  workpeople. 
It  should  therefore  be  all  watchfulness  and  energy,  so  that  fair 
play  may  be  shown  to  them.  It  should  provide  a  suitable  time¬ 
table  for  them,  drawn  up  according  to  the  rules  of  Christian 
economy.  They  should  have  convenient  times  for  rest,  especially 
festivals.  Their  self-respect,  their  dignity,  their  morals  should  be 
guarded. 

For  workpeople  of  the  second  position,  the  Commune  has  not 
directly  the  same  obligations,  but  it  has  them  indirectly.  When 
a  man  entrusts  his  work  to  a  contractor,  who  sees  that  the  v/ork 

*  It  must  be  remembered  that  here  and  elsewhere  throughout  the  book 
the  word  “  Undertaker  ”  means  one  who  engages  to  transact  business 
for  others.  See  especially  p.  151. — Trans. 


UNION  OF  COMMUNES 


51 


must  be  executed  by  workpeople,  be  knowingly  and  willingly 
places  the  platform  on  which  the  interests  of  the  workpeople  are 
to  be  found.  Hence  it  is  his  duty  so  to  regulate  the  contract  that 
that  platform  may  be  safe  and  sound,  and  may  not  bring  all  to 
ruin. 

This  the  Commune  can  do  by  means  of  social  clauses  in  contracts 
of  “  farming.”  Let  the  Commune  include  in  the  contract  such 
conditions  that  the  “  farmer,”  in  the  treatment  of  the  workpeople, 
cannot  violate.  Let  the  wages,  the  time-table,  and  the  amount  of 
rest  be  justly  arranged.8 

Next  come  workpeople  of  the  third  position,  towards  whom  the 
Commune  has  the  function  of  a  beneficent  guardianship,  by 
the  very  fact  that  they  are  affiliated  to  it.  This  function, 
we  must  admit,  is  complex  enough ;  nor  can  it  easily  be 
explained  in  a  short  space.  We  will,  however,  touch  upon  its 
chief  points. 

Above  all,  the  eye  of  the  Commune,  in  providing  for  the  general 
good,  ought  to  fix  its  care  and  attention  on  the  weakest  part.  The 
Commune  can  very  well  give,  and  therefore  ought  to  give,  much 
assistance  to  those  institutions  whose  scope  is  to  improve  the 
condition  of  workpeople,  to  prevent  them  from  being  wronged, 
to  enable  them  to  defend  themselves.  When  these  are  not  of  a 
character  injurious  to  individuals  or  to  society,  they  are  to  be 
aided  by  the  Commune. 

For  other  tasks  with  regard  to  the  working  classes,  it  is  proper 
that  the  Commune  should  appoint  men  to  conduct  a  Labour  Office 
or  Employment  Bureau.  This  is  an  institution  which  at  the  present 
day  ought  to  be  the  creation  of  communal  authority,  and  ought 
to  have  for  its  scope  to  take  part  in  all  the  affairs  that,  either 
alone  or  in  conjunction  with  capital,  engage  the  attention  of  the 
working  classes  of  the  place.9 


Themes. — Where  the  establishment  of  elementary  schools  by  the  State 
takes  away  every  authority  and  function  from  Communes,  it  ought 
to  be  opposed — At  the  communal  elections,  let  candidates  of  different 
occupations  be  chosen,  thus  realising,  as  far  as  possible  at  the  present  day, 
a  professional  representation — The  advantages  and  the  dangers  of 
municipalism. 


CHAPTER  A. 

THE  STATE  AND  ITS  DUTIES. 

Section  I. — Union  of  Communes. 

In  our  work  of  analysing  the  organisms  that  compose  the  social 
body,  proceeding  as  usual  from  the  less  to  the  more  complex,  we 
have  observed  a  real  natural  hierarchy  of  bodies,  of  which  the 


52 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


higher  find  a  reason  for  their  existence  in  the  aspirations  as  well 
as  in  the  weaknesses  of  the  lower. 

The  Commune  is  a  powerful  factor  for  the  wellbeing  of 
families,  and  consequently  of  individuals. 

Yet  the  force  of  a  commune  is  not  so  great  that  it  cannot 
increase  by  union,  and  thus  produce  a  greater  amount  of  well¬ 
being.  And  hence  we  have  a  union  of  Communes.  Grouped 
together,  they  form  a  more  ample  society — individuals,  families, 
communes,  and  other  moral  bodies — subordinated  for  the  good 
of  all.  This  society  has  every  facility  possible  for  the  attainment 
of  its  end.  It  is  the  State. 


Section  II. — Origin  and  Nature  of  the  State. 

All  that  we  have  said  in  the  beginning  on  the  sociability  of  man 
finds  its  full  realisation  in  that  civil,  perfect,  independent  society 
which  we  call  the  State. 

Man  cannot  be  quite  happy  on  earth.  But  if  God  has  granted 
him  the  use  of  goods  here  below,  and  clearly  shown  it  to  be  His. 
will  that  these  goods  should  be  procured  by  means  of  social  inter¬ 
course,  it  is  evident  that,  when  a  people  becomes  a  State,  in  which 
the  rights  of  individuals  and  families  are  safeguarded,  the  common 
wellbeing  procured  and  promoted,  it  has  attained  to  the  temporal 
designs  of  God  over  mankind. 

Neither  domestic  nor  communal  society  rules  a  people  to  such 
a  degree.  These  associations  have  a  peculiar  determinate  end 
of  their  own.  Within  the  circuit  of  a  society  more  vast,  and 
therefore  more  powerful,  man  can  find  his  perfection,  already 
begun  by  means  of  the  family  and  the  commune. 

One  only  State,  embracing  all  the  human  race,  might  seem  to 
be  the  design  of  God.  And  this  was  indeed  a  dream  of  some 
conquerors,  who,  carried  away  by  an  unbridled  ambition,  thought 
that  the  Lord  God  had  created  the  human  race  in  order  to  give  it 
into  their  power  for  amusement.  Some  socialists  too,  who  walk 
with  their  heads  in  the  clouds,  have  had  the  same  dream.  But 
whoever  considers  how  impossible  is  such  a  State — how  there 
could  be  no  civilisation,  or  prosperity,  or  wellbeing  in  it — will 
easily  conclude  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  for  the  human  race  to 
continue  and  to  flourish  in  perfection  by  means  of  various  parti¬ 
cular  societies,  each  one  of  them  autonomous  and  independent,, 
each  one  of  them  a  State  in  itself. 

The  origin  of  the  State  therefore  we  must  find  in  the  nature 
of  man.  This  nature,  studied,  teaches  us  that  man  has  not  only 
wants,  which  alone  he  cannot  satisfy,  but  also  duties,  which  bind 
him  to  his  kind,  or  to  something  universal,  to  constitute  and  perfect 
which  God  calls  him. 

Hence  it  is  easy  for  us  to  form  a  just  idea  of  what  the  State  is. 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  STATE 


53 


It  is  an  institution  that,  by  the  will  of  God,  exists  among  men  for 
their  good. 

The  State  therefore,  like  everything  else  coming  under  the  will 
of  God,  has  an  end  assigned  to  it  by  Him,  and  hence  it  has  rights 
and  duties,  the  violation  of  which  is  a  fault  before  God. 

For  the  most  part  those  who,  in  their  doctrines,  have  regarded 
man  as  separated  from  God  cannot  assign  to  the  State  that  origin 
which  we  have  assigned  to  it ;  the}?-  cannot  conceive  it  as  we  con¬ 
ceive  it ;  and,  according  to  the  evils  that  they  daily  meet  and  wish 
to  remedy,  they  pantheistically  make  a  God  or  stoically  a 
mechanism  for  them.  But  they  forget  that  their  head  is  not  the 
same  thing  as  logic,  and  that  it  is  from  the  latter  and  not  from  the 
former  that  humanity  takes  its  rule — humanity,  too  much  inclined 
to  the  satisfaction  of  self. 

What,  in  point  of  fact,  is  the  notion  held  to-day  of  the  State  ? 
That  it  is  nothing  but  an  agglomeration  of  individuals,  who  are 
united  for  the  sake  of  advantage.  This  arises  from  a  materialistic 
idea  of  man.  And  thus  the  individual  is  the  only  reason  for  the 
existence  of  the  State ;  and  thus  the  State  can  have  no  other 
duties  than  those  which  individuals  give  it ! 

We  say  no.  We  recognise  an  organism,  which  is  more  than  a 
mere  assembly  or  aggregation.  It  is  formed  by  individuals,  and 
for  their  good ;  but  it  is  not  simply  by  their  will.  The  will  that 
obliges  them  to  form  it  is  superior  to  theirs.  In  short,  between 
the  State  as  conceived  by  the  liberals  and  that  as  conceived  by 
us,  there  is  the  same  difference  as  between  the  members  of  a  body 
in  a  group  and  the  body  itself.  While  the  members  are  in  each, 
everyone  can  see  that  in  the  latter  case  they  are  marked  by  an 
organic  unity  that  is  wanting  in  the  former.  Ten  panes  of  glass 
may  cover  a  certain  space,  but  they  will  not  have  the  same  value 
as  one  large  pane. 

Let  us  hear  Weiss  on  this  matter  : — “  Every  State  has,  as  a 
finite  whole,  to  fulfil  a  particular  destiny.  This  is  what  justifies  it. 
This  is  the  mainspring  of  all  its  activity,  the  source  of  its  public 
law,  its  vital  principle,  the  foundation  of  its  truth.  This  axiom  of 
the  essential  unity  of  the  State  is  of  such  importance  that  perhaps 
there  cannot  be  any  greater.” 

For  us  therefore  the  State  is  as  a  person  who  has  his  own 
existence,  his  own  end,  his  own  rights,  his  own  duties. 

A.  creation  of  God,  the  State  is  not  God.  For  the  State,  as 
well  as  for  individuals,  God  is  the  source  of  rights  and  duties. 
Nothing  therefore  more  absurd  than  the  State-olatry  of  some 
politicians,  who  wish  the  State  to  be  a  law  and  a  rule  for  itself, 
and  who  recognise  a  law  as  just,  holy,  and  binding,  simply  because 
it  has  been  prepared  by  the  State. 

There  were  some  who,  wishing  to  gild  the  idol,  broke  it  in 
pieces.  God  and  the  creature  are  two  contradictory  terms ; 
brought  near,  they  destroy  each  other.  A  God  State — for  him 
who  knows  how  to  reason — is  no  State. 


54 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


Section  III. — End  and  Duties  of  the  State. 

The  State  therefore,  consisting  of  men,  is  not  a  human,  but  a 
natural  institution.  Nature,  in  favour  of  the  State,  spoke  clearly 
enough  by  the  voice  of  the  wants  of  man,  and  of  his  progressive 
tendencies,  which  only  in  the  State  can  find  satisfaction. 

From  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  State,  we  know  what  ought 
naturally  to  be  its  end. 

Formed  as  a  consequence  of  human  requirements,  the  State 
can  have  no  other  end  than  to  satisfy  them — to  satisfy  them  in 
due  relation  to  the  last  end  of  man,  to  satisfy  them  by  making 
account  of  an  active  autonomy  in  individuals,  to  satisfy  them  in 
the  measure  dictated  by  equity  and  by  the  possibility  of  human 
things. 

If  then  man  is,  as  we  have  said  above,  destined  for  a 
supernatural  end,  will  it  be  a  task  of  the  State  to  lead  man  to 
this  end  ? 

No ;  it  would  be  to  require  an  effect  greater  than  the  cause. 
The  State,  being  a  natural  institution,  provided  only  with  natural 
means,  it  cannot  be  so  unnaturalised  as  to  conduct  man  directly 
to  a  supernatural  end.  God  thought  of  this  when  forming  the 
Church,  a  supernatural  society,  and  furnished  it  with  the  means 
necessary  for  such  a  purpose.  Nevertheless,  the  State  can  and 
should  concur  indirectly,  because,  having  to  procure  real  good 
for  men,  and  this  being  that  alone  which  not  only  does  not  hinder, 
but  facilitates  the  attainment  of  the  last  end,  it  ought  to  take 
its  rule  and  measure  from  this  end  in  the  development  of  its 
activity. 

What  therefore  is  the  end  of  the  State  ?  The  common  good  of 
all  the  citizens.  Leo  XIII.  has  told  us,  to  provide  for  the  common 
good  is  the  business  of  the  State.  (Rerum  novarum.) 

These  things  we  say,  remembering  what  has  been  already  said. 
We  have  elsewhere  reasoned  sufficiently,  it  seems  to  us,  on  the 
end  of  civil  society — on  the  goods  that  the  citizens  have  a  natural 
right  to  expect  from  it.  Now,  the  State  is  civil  society  in  act  ; 
and  the  end  that  it  ought  to  set  before  it  is  that  for  which  civil 
association,  existing  in  the  form  of  a  State,  is  destined  by 
nature. 

The  duties  of  the  State  may  therefore  be  summed  up : — (i.)  To 
use  all  means  necessary  for  defending  those  bodies  of  which  it  is 
composed,  as  well  in  their  real  as  in  their  potential  personality — 
as  well  in  the  goods  that  they  possess  as  in  the  exercise  of  their 
just  rights,  natural  or  acquired,  (ii.)  To  promote  the  wellbeing  of 
those  bodies,  either  by  facilitating  for  them  the  accomplishment 
of  works  that  they  initiate,  or  by  giving  completion  to  great 
undertakings,  which,  precisely  on  account  of  their  greatness, 
cannot  be  effected  by  inferior  bodies. 


DUTIES  OF  THE  STATE  TOWARDS  CITIZENS  55 


Section  IV. — Duties  of  the  State  towards  the  Citizens. 

In  the  great  world  of  the  State,  where  the  crowd  makes  a  fuss, 
money  rattles,  and  glory  dazzles,  it  is  very  easy  to  lose  sight  of 
the  human  being,  the  smallest  of  the  organisms  of  which  the  State 
consists.  Yet  this  small  being  is  the  foundation  of  the  hierarchy 
of  human  organisms,  because — let  us  not  forget — it  is  for  the  wel¬ 
fare  of  the  individual  that  nature  has  appointed  the  Family,  the 
Commune,  and  the  State. 

The  duty  of  the  State  towards  the  individual  has  been  too  much 
neglected,  and  has  even  been  denied.  But  we  have  said,  and  we 
repeat  it :  every  man,  because  a  man,  has  a  right  to  appear  before 
the  social  body,  or  the  State,  and  to  demand  of  it  his  share  in  the 
social  good. 

And  if  the  individual  has  such  a  right,  the  State  has  naturally 
some  duties  towards  him.  What  are  they  ? 

The  first  duty  is  that  of  respect  for  his  personality.  Man,  as  we 
know,  is  a  centre  of  free  movements  or  actions.  This  freedom 
drives  man  to  the  apogee  of  created  life,  because  it  constitutes  him 
in  a  special  manner  the  principle  of  his  acts. 

If  man  is  free  in  society  to  set  forth  his  reasons,  to  develop  his 
personality,  this  means  that  he  enjoys  civil  liberty  in  the  State. 
And  this  liberty  the  State  should  respect  in  every  citizen. 

But  here  a  question  arises.  Is  civil  liberty  of  the  same  extent 
as  natural  liberty  ?  Or  can  a  man  do  by  civil  right  all  that  he  can 
do  by  natural  right  ? 

Speaking  in  the  concrete,  yes ;  because,  in  a  strictly  natural 
sense — that  is,  according  to  the  design  of  nature — he  can  only  do 
that  which  he  can  do  lawfully,  or  he  can  only  do  that  which  can 
be  reconciled  with  the  State  in  which  nature  has  disposed  that  he 
should  five. 

But,  speaking  in  the  abstract,  certainly  no.  Man  has  a  right 
to  use  his  natural  liberty  within  the  limits  marked  for  him  by  the 
respect  that  he  owes  to  the  rights  of  his  brethren  and  of  all  civil 
society.  The  State  has  a  right  to  enter  into  the  field  of  those 
actions  which  are  free  to  the  individual,  and  to  prevent  those 
which  conflict  with  the  right  of  the  neighbour  or  are  opposed  to 
the  common  good  ;  his  other  actions,  it  is  its  duty  to  respect  and 
to  cause  others  to  respect.  This  is  called  the  security  of  civil 
liberty  for  the  citizens. 

The  individual  is  like  a  young  tree,  which  has  a  right  to  throw 
out  its  branches  to  the  atmosphere  of  the  world  :  only  when  they 
invade  the  space  belonging  to  another,  the  State  has  a  right  to 
lop  them  off. 

Not  only  so ;  but  the  State  has  a  duty  to  prevent  others  from 
checking  by  any  abuse  the  free  growth  of  an  individual.  In 
defence  of  the  individual  right,  it  is  not  well  that  the  individual 
himself  should  rise  up,  either  because  there  is  danger  of  hallucina- 


56 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


tion  in  His  own  cause,  or  because  lie  would  often  be  unequal  to 
the  task.  Who  therefore,  if  not  the  State,  should  guard  the 
individual  right  ?  Leo  XIII.  frankly  declares  :  “  Rights  are  to 
be  religiously  protected  wherever  they  exist ;  and  the  public 
authority,  preventing  or  punishing  any  violation  of  them, 
should  secure  every  one  in  the  possession  of  his  own.”  ( Rerum 
novarum.) 

Hence  we  infer  that  it  is  a  duty  of  the  State  to  form  a  just 
conception  of  the  full  rights  of  the  human  individual,  with  a  view 
to  guard  and  defend  them.  Here  we  find  a  reason  for  the  conduct 
that  the  State  ought  to  observe  with  regard  to  morals  and  religion. 
We  know  well  that  these  do  not  form  a  proper  object  for  the 
interference  of  the  State ;  but  for  two  reasons  we  maintain  that 
it  ought  to  help  them  to  flourish,  and  to  defend  them  from  outrage. 
The  first  reason  is  that  moral  and  religious,  no  less  than  physical, 
matters  are  the  interests  of  individuals ;  for  the  defence  of  which 
all  the  arguments  already  set  forth  hold  good.  The  second  is  that 
even  those  goods  which  are  the  direct  object  of  the  State  are 
connected  with  the  fate  of  morals  and  religion. 

We  will  give  a  third  reason,  which  is  the  strongest  of  all.  The 
State  is  for  man,  not  man  for  the  State.  And  man  ought  to  be 
considered  and  treated  according  to  what  he  is — that  is  to  say,  a 
creature  whom,  as  we  showed  in  its  place,  God  has  destined  to 
lay  up  stores  of  merit  here  for  a  happy  eternity  hereafter.  This 
ought  not  to  be  forgotten  by  the  State,  because  it  is  one  of  the 
rights  of  man ;  and  the  State  cannot  change  or  destroy  that 
which  belongs  inviolably  to  human  nature.  The  State  is  the 
servant,  not  the  master,  of  mankind. 

It  will  be  useful  to  confirm  this  point  by  some  words  of  the  Pope. 
Leo  XIII.,  after  proving  the  duty  of  the  State  to  be  moral  and 
religious,  adds  : — “  And  this  they  ( Princes )  owe  to  their  subjects. 
Because  all  we  who  breathe  are  born  and  destined  for  that  supreme 
and  last  good  towards  which  our  thoughts  ought  to  be  continually 
turned,  that  good  which  is  to  be  found  in  Heaven  after  this  short 
and  fleeting  life.  Now,  the  full  and  perfect  happiness  of  man 
depending  on  the  possession  of  this  good,  it  follows  that  the 
attainment  of  the  said  end  is  a  matter  of  such  great  importance 
for  every  one  that  no  greater  can  be  imagined.  It  is  necessary 
therefore  that  civil  society,  intended  for  the  common  good,  should 
promote  the  public  prosperity  in  such  a  manner  that  the  citizens, 
while  on  their  way  to  the  acquisition  of  that  supreme  and  un¬ 
changeable  good  which  they  desire,  may  not  only  find  no  obstacle 
set  before  them,  but  may  find  every  facility  provided  for  their 
advance.  And  the  chief  of  all  is  that  due  reverence  should  be 
shown  towards  religion,  the  duties  of  which  make  the  bond  between 
God  and  man.”  (Encyc.  Immortale  Dei.) 

Of  these  things  the  State  ought  to  make  account  in  granting 
or  refusing  liberty  of  the  Press,  of  speech,  of  action.  The  Pope 
says  : — “  Evil  and  error  cannot  have  a  right  to  be  set  forth  or 


DUTIES  OF  THE  STATE  TOWARDS  CITIZENS  57 


propagated.  .  .  .  The  State  is  false  to  the  laws  prescribed 

by  nature,  when,  every  bridle  being  removed,  full  power  is  left  to 
evil  and  error  to  upset  minds  and  to  corrupt  hearts.”  It  is  not 
from  itself  that  the  State  should  take  a  rule  for  thus  controlling 
the  liberty  of  the  citizens,  but  from  that  authority  which  is 
competent  to  judge  of  truth  and  error,  of  virtue  and  vice,  of 
liberty  and  licence. 

The  State  ought  also  to  give  its  valuable  aid  to  those  under¬ 
takings  which,  privately  initiated,  will,  when  completed,  turn  to 
general  advantage,  moral  as  well  as  material.  Not  only  so,  but 
it  ought  also  itself  to  initiate  and  complete,  within  the  limits  of 
its  power,  such  things  as  may  tend  to  the  common  prosperity  and 
convenience.  Father  Biederlack  observes  here  very  sensibly  : — 
“  This  does  not  mean  that  it  is  a  duty  of  the  State  to  take  care 
that  every  citizen  is  materially  happy ;  but  it  ought  always  to 
apply  itself  in  such  a  manner  as  to  enable  all  the  citizens  most  easily 
to  procure  for  themselves,  by  their  own  activity,  those  material 
and  intellectual  goods  which  are  connected  with,  temporal  well¬ 
being.  Traffic  and  commerce  ought  to  be  facilitated  ;  agriculture, 
trades,  arts  ought  to  be  promoted  according  to  circumstances; 
schools  ought  to  be  opened,  in  which  pupils  may  have  every  means 
of  acquiring  the  knowledge  suitable  and  useful  for  their  condition.” 
( Introduzione  alio  Studio  della  Questione  Sociale,  p.  136.) 

Well  said.  Let  us  keep  in  mind  the  sufficient  reason  for  the 
existence  of  the  State,  which  rests  entirely  on  an  insufficiency  of 
power  in  inferior  organisms.  But  when  this  power  is  present,  the 
State  cannot  interfere,  setting  it  aside  or  substituting  a  different 
power. 

There  is  another  liberty  that  the  State  is  bound,  not  always, 
but  in  certain  circumstances,  to  respect  in  citizens,  and  that  is 
political  liberty.  Such  is  the  name  given  to  a  direct  or  indirect 
participation  of  the  citizen  in  the  government.  Observe.  As  for 
us,  any  form  of  government  suffices  :  what  chiefly  concerns  us  is 
that  it  should  be  guided  by  justice.  But  thereby  it  is  also  certain 
that  it  can  be  legitimate,  and  may  grant  to  the  people  some 
participation  in  the  sovereignty,  either  direct,  as  in  a  pure 
democracy,  or  indirect,  as  in  a  representative  government.  Hear 
the  Pope  : — “  A  participation,  more  or  less  great,  of  the  citizens 
in  the  management  of  public  affairs  is  not  condemned.  This 
participation,  in  given  circumstances  and  with  certain  conditions, 
may  be  not  only  a  service  but  a  duty.”  Admitting  therefore  the 
existence  of  a  government  more  or  less  democratic,  it  is  bound  to 
respect  the  political  liberty  of  its  subjects. 

Let  the  government  make  a  due  selection.  Let  it  exclude 
minors,  malefactors,  &c.  ;  but  when  a  man  is  a  man,  and  conducts 
himself  like  a  man,  let  it  give  him  a  vote. 

Are  we  therefore  advocates  of  universal  suffrage  ? 

In  theory — yes  :  it  follows  from  what  we  have  said.  In  prac¬ 
tice — we  distinguish.  We  are  advocates  for  it  in  a  state  of 


58 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


organised  society,  with,  professional  representation,  because  this 
frees  the  electors  from  the  seductive  influence  of  human  passions. 
We  are  not  advocates  for  it  in  a  state  of  disorganised  society,  with 
elections  carried  by  majorities.  And  this,  not  on  account  of 
defect  in  that  system  by  itself,  but  because  it  is  too  often  accom¬ 
panied  with  the  wrangling  of  an  excited  mob  and  the  venal  abuse 
of  a  sacred  right.  And  here  we  think  that  we  may  borrow  half 
a  page  from  Eossignoli,  who  shows  how  universality  of  suffrage 
is  to  be  understood. 

“  Universal,  admitting  to  the  suffrage,  as  in  the  Italian  Com¬ 
munes  of  the  middle  ages,  all  heads  actual  and  virtual  of  families, 
domiciled  in  the  municipal  territory,  and  including,  as  now  in 
Canada,  widows  and  marriageable  young  women.  For  the 
exclusion  of  widows  and  marriageable  young  women  has  no  reason 
when  precautions  are  taken  (among  these,  that  the  vote  need  not 
be  given  personally)  to  guard  feminine  modesty  and  reserve.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  exclusion  of  this  element,  so  tenaciously 
conservative,  can  only  help  disorderly  factions.  And  much  less 
reason  is  there  for  excluding  the  poor  and  illiterate.  To  exclude 
the  poor  altogether  would  be  to  justify  those  writers  who  regard 
civil  society  as  a  company  of  proprietors,  as  if  Vce  soli  was  said 
only  to  proprietors,  or  as  if  he  who  owns  nothing  but  the  labour 
of  his  hands  and  his  brains  is  not,  as  well  as  others,  destined  by 
nature  to  live  in  society.  And  as  for  the  illiterate,  why  should 
they  be  excluded  from  a  vote,  unless  it  is  supposed  (with  what 
reason  does  not  appear)  that  the  good  sense  necessary  for  a  citizen 
in  order  to  call  to  the  government  of  his  Commune  those  men 
whom  he  sees  most  worthy  around  him  is  a  fruit  derived  solely 
from  a  study  of  the  alphabet  and  an  examination  of  the  franchise  ?  ” 
(Concetto  dell  ’  Autoritd  Politica,  p.  180.) 

Let  us  make  another  quotation.  It  is  from  the  Pope,  and 
regards  the  exercise  of  political  liberty  : — “  Generally  speaking,  a 
total  abstention  from  political  life  would  be  no  less  blamable  than 
a  refusal  to  do  anything  for  the  common  good,  especially  as 
Catholics  are  bound,  by  reason  of  their  principles,  to  bring  integrity 
and  zeal  to  the  management  of  affairs.”  (Encyc.  Immortale 
Lei.) 

With  a  view  to  this  participation  of  the  people  in  the  exercise 
of  sovereign  power,  Christian  Democracy  recommends  two 
institutions,  of  which  we  shall  speak  briefly. 

Professional  Representation* — The  first  is  that  of  professional 
representation.  The  representative  methods  of  the  present  day, 
formed  by  means  of  absolute  majorities,  have  come,  in  point  of 
fact,  to  be  eminently  despotic.  They  who  practise  this  despotism 
are  the  official  A.,  the  absentee  B.,  and  often  the  millionaire  C. 
The  people  indeed  give  their  vote,  and  give  it  freely ;  but  what 

*  The  reader  will  observe  that  the  word  “  professional  ”  is  here  used 
in  its  widest  sense,  including  every  kind  of  trade,  business,  occupation, 
by  which  man  earns  an  honest  livelihood.  See  also  note  4,  p.  87. — Trans. 


DUTIES  OF  THE  STATE  TOWARDS  CITIZENS  59 


community  of  interests  lias  the  candidate  with  the  electors  to 
give  them  any  confidence  that  he  will  take  care  of  them  ?  The 
social  pyramid  has  its  steps  in  the  various  classes  to  which  the 
people  belong.  If  a  man  is  taken  indifferently  from  any  class, 
what  relations  has  he  with  the  others,  or  how  can  he  be  their 
representative  ?  A  stranger  to  them,  it  is  with  difficulty  he 
knows  their  wants.  Not  having  the  same  interests,  oftener  being 
in  antagonism  with  their  interests,  he  is  no  way  solicitous  for  them, 
or  he  dexterously  joins  in  governing  them  with  such  artifice  as  to 
throw  dust  in  their  eyes  and — turn  all  to  his  own  advantage. 

The  system  of  professional  representation  means  that  the 
representation  of  the  people  should  be  real,  not  illusory.  It 
proposes  that  every  class  should  of  necessity  have  its  representative 
on  the  boards  of  public  bodies.  Let  him  be  taken  from  the  midst 
of  his  class.  He  will  then  be  able  for  his  work.  He  will  feel  the 
wants  of  his  class,  which  are  also  his  own  ;  and  he  will  know  how 
to  guard,  to  defend,  and  to  promote  its  interests.  This  reform  of 
the  elective  system  is  evidently  linked  with  professional  organisa¬ 
tion,  to  which  we  ought  to  bring  back  society. 

So  long  as  the  present  disorganised  state  continues,  Catholics 
adopt  proportional  representation  as  a  substitute.  Instead  of 
the  professional  classes,  w*e  have  the  different  parties  that  agitate 
for  their  rights.  Give  to  each  party  one  or  more  representatives, 
according  to  its  numerical  power,  and  you  have  proportional 
representation. 

The  Referendum. — This  is  the  second  institution  to  which  we 
refer.  It  is  that  of  Catholics  and  others  who  hold  sane  modern 
views.  The  Referendum  consists  in  this,  that  those  who  are 
chosen  to  represent  the  people  in  the  councils  of  the  nation  should, 
in  certain  grave  cases,  consult  the  electoral  body  before  deliberat¬ 
ing  among  themselves.  It  is  like  a  restriction  of  confidence,  a 
limitation  of  command,  that  the  electors  make  in  regard  to  those 
wffiom  they  have  elected.  From  the  definition  it  appears  : — 

i.  That  the  scope  of  the  Referendum  is  not  to  substitute  the 
people  for  the  directing  bodies,  nor  yet  to  hold  these  latter  con¬ 
tinually  bound  hand  and  foot,  but  only,  in  extraordinary  cases,  to 
treat  with  them  about  matters  of  great  importance  and  much 
interest  for  the  people. 

ii.  That  the  Referendum  is  political  or  administrative,  according 
as  the  appeal  to  the  people  is  made  by  the  State  or  by  local 
administrations. 

iii.  That  it  can  be  consultative,  if  it  has  only  the  power  to  give 
information  and  counsel  to  the  directing  bodies,  in  whom  there  is 
authority  to  make  no  account  thereof ;  and  it  can  be  deliberative, 
if  it  has  power  to  settle  or  to  postpone  a  matter  of  business. 

Is  the  Referendum  just  ?  Whoever  denies  it,  should  prove  that 
it  offends  the  rights  of  some  one.  Of  whom  ?  Is  it  of  the 
legislator  ?  But  he  himself  appeals  to  it,  because  his  responsibility 
is  divisible,  and  can  be  shared  by  the  people. 


60 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


Is  it  useful  ?  We  have  no  doubt  of  it. 

First  of  all  we  recognise  in  the  people  a  store  of  valuable  quali¬ 
ties  :  sound  sense,  honesty,  generosity,  fear  of  God — blessings 
that  are  not  always  met  in  such  abundance  higher  up.  To  call 
so  many  fine  energies  into  action  is  certainly  an  excellent  work. 

For  another  reason  we  regard  it  as  good.  The  representatives 
of  the  people,  chosen  according  to  the  present  system  of  majorities, 
are  too  often  the  representatives  of  themselves,  or  of  a  party,  or  of 
a  sect.  Such  representatives  of  the  people  easily  attend  to  every¬ 
thing  but  the  real  interests  of  the  people. 

The  Referendum,  is  a  very  efficacious  check  on  the  excessive 
powers  of  the  oligarchy ;  it  is  a  salutary  corrective  amid  the  abuses 
of  the  present  system. 

In  the  Congress  of  Social  Science  held  at  Padua  in  1896,  Pro¬ 
fessor  Rossi,  supported  by  the  wise  remarks  of  Toniolo,  expressed 
himself  in  favour  of  a  Communal  Referendum, .10 

We  shall  insist  on  the  ideas  of  Professor  Rossi,  and  say  that 
if  the  Communal  Referendum  had  been  instituted  years  ago,  many 
Communes  would  not  to-day  be  found  financially  in  low  condition, 
because  the  people  would  not  have  been  so  easily  induced  to  waste 
their  money  on  foolish  expenses.  And  as  for  morals,  who  does 
not  know  that  the  people  would  not  have  secularised  the  schools 
and  hospitals,  nor  created  embarrassments  about  any  manifesta¬ 
tion  of  worship  ? 

Nevertheless,  we  do  not  admit  the  Referendum  unconditionally. 
We  recognise  that  the  Referendum  ought  not  to  be  blind,  that  it 
supposes  in  the  people  sufficient  knowledge  to  judge,  and  that 
proper  precautions  ought  to  be  taken  to  ascertain  the  will  of 
the  people. 

For  the  rest,  we  Catholics  are  not  the  only  people  who  desire  the 
Referendum.  It  not  unfrequently  happens  that  we  find  ourselves 
among  men  of  the  most  opposite  parties,  not  excluding  some  of 
the  socialists  themselves. 

It  seems  to  us  that  true  democracy  requires  the  Referendum. 
In  what  does  this  democracy  consist  ?  “  In  letting  all  classes 

share  proportionally  in  public  life  and  enjoy  it,  without  being 
absorbed  or  outdone  by  others,  or  by  a  supreme  centralising 
power.’5  Just  the  contrary  of  what  occurs  at  present.  To-day 
the  lower  classes  are  treated  as  senseless  beings,  mere  matter,  at 
most  as  good  material  for  the  pedestal  of  somebody’s  ambition. 
This  is  a  state  of  things  condemned  by  the  Pontiff.  “  The 
proletariat,”  he  says,  “  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  rich,  are 
citizens  by  natural  right,  true  and  living  members,  forming,  by 
means  of  the  family,  the  social  body — not  to  say  that  they  are  the 
greater  number.” 

But  all  has  not  yet  been  said.  Among  the  multitude  of  citizens 
there  is  one  class  that — by  a  necessity  of  nature — is  the  most 
weak,  the  most  exposed  therefore  to  the  ill-treatment  of  those 
who  feel  themselves  the  strongest,  and  it  is  the  class  of  those  who 


DUTIES  OF  THE  STATE  TOWARDS  CITIZENS  61 


earn  a  living  by  the  labour  of  their  hands.  For  this  class  the 
State  ought  to  have  a  special  care  and  regard.  And  this  for  the 
simple  reason,  often  given,  that  as  society  ought  to  be  a  state  of 
common  wellbeing,  it  ought  to  exert  itself  more  where  the  need 
is  greater.  What  action  the  government  ought  to  take  in  this 
matter,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  consider  elsewhere.  Here  it 
will  suffice  to  lay  down  the  principle,  and  to  confirm  it  with  the 
words  of  the  Pope.  “  In  making  account  of  private  persons,  a 
special  regard  is  to  be  had  for  the  weak  and  the  poor.  The  multi¬ 
tude  of  tfie  rich  have  perhaps  of  themselves  less  need  of  public 
defence ;  the  miserable  people,  in  want  of  support,  have  the 
utmost  need  of  finding  themselves  under  the  patronage  of  the 
State.  And  therefore  the  working  classes,  who  are  in  the  number 
of  the  weak  and  needy,  require  the  special  care  and  protection, 
of  the  State.” 

The  greatest  equity  ought  to  be  observed  in  dispensing  to  the 
citizens  the  fruits  of  social  life,  winch  is  done  by  observing  distri¬ 
butive  justice.  The  Holy  Father  says  : — “  It  should  never 
happen  that  the  civil  authority  serves  only  one  or  a  few,  it  being 
established  for  the  common  good  of  all.” 

We  should  form  a  clear  idea  of  distributive  justice,  and  we  shall 
do  so  by  taking  St.  Thomas  as  our  guide.  He  treats  of  it  at  great 
length  in  his  Summa  of  Theology  (2a  2ge,  q.  LXI.). 

The  word  distributive  intimates  to  us  that  there  is  question  of 
dispensing  something.  But  dispensing  what  ?  St.  Thomas 
informs  us  that  the  things  to  be  dispensed  or  distributed  are 
common  things.  Objects  are  called  common  when  many  have 
a  right  to  them.  To  all  therefore  distribution  ought  to  be 
made. 

By  what  title  ?  St.  Thomas  says  : — ££  As  a  part  and  the  whole 
are  in  some  manner  the  same  thing,  so  that  which  is  of  the  whole 
is  in  some  manner  of  the  part ;  and  thus,  when  of  common  goods 
anything  is  distributed  to  individuals,  every  one  in  some  manner 
receives  what  is  his  own.”  Observe  the  repetition  of  the  words 
“  in  some  manner,”  which  St.  Thomas  could  on  no  account  omit. 
Farther  down  he  gives  the  reason  : — ££  It  must  be  said  that 
distributive  and  commutative  justice  are  distinguished  not  only 
according  to  one  and  many,*  but  according  to  the  different 
nature  of  the  debt  Because  that  which  is  common  is  due  to  anv 
one  in  quite  a  different  manner  from  that  which  is  his  own.” 
To  that  which  is  common  the  individual  has  a  right,  but  not  yet 
a  definite  concrete  right,  as  he  has  to  that  which  is  properly 
his  own.  To  that  which  is  common  the  individual  has  a  certain 

*  Distributive  justice  is  generally  said  to  be  that  which  directs  the 
community  or  the  government  in  giving  honours,  offices,  or  emoluments 
to  each  particular  member  of  the  community,  and  commutative  justice 
that  which  regulates  the  dealings  of  one  private  individual  with  another. 
Thus,  commutative  justice  would  have  reference  to  one  person  (or  a  number 
of  persons  morally  equivalent  to  one) ;  distributive,  to  many. — Trans. 


62 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


right  not  to  be  questioned,  but  not  determined  in  substance  and 
measure,  and  to  be  determined  by  a  suitable  criterion. 

We  said  above  that  every  man  in  the  social  body  has  his  space, 
resulting  from  reality  and  potentiality,  alongside  the  spaces  of 
his  brethren  living  with  him.  That  one  space  should  respect 
another  is  commutative  justice. 

But  individuals  have  before  them  a  greater  organism,  which, 
though  formed  from  them,  exists  by  itself.  Towards  this  they 
have  duties  and  rights.  They  have  duties,  which  we  have 
examined  under  the  term  44  social.”  They  have  rights  :  they  have 
a  right  that  the  great  organism,  society,  should  give  them  a  share 
in  that  wellbeing  to  procure  which  it  exists,  and  which,  being  in 
some  manner  the  property  of  all,  is  called  common. 

To  place  this  distribution  in  the  hands  of  him  who  commands, 
the  Angelic  Doctor  says  : — <£  The  act  of  distribution,  which  is  of 
common  goods,  belongs  only  to  him  who  presides  over  the  common 
goods.”  And  this  not  at  all  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  or  with 
partiality,  but  with  proportion. 

With  what  proportion  ?  Is  it  with  proportion  to  how  much 
the  individual  has  contributed  to  the  common  good  ?  But  that 
would  suppose  society  to  be  a  body  separated  from  men  rather  than 
consisting  of  men — a  body  in  which  they  would  make  a  financial 
speculation,  disposed  to  remain  with  it  as  long  as  it  repaid  them 
in  good  measure,  ready  to  quit  it  if  it  ceased  to  offer  any  advantage. 
That  wTe  know  is  not  the  proportion.  Man  finding  himself  in 
society  with  a  view  to  his  relative  wellbeing,  subordinated  to  the 
attainment  of  his  last  end,  the  proportion  will  be  in  accordance 
with  the  position  that  each  individual  occupies. 

St.  Thomas  teaches  that,  in  distributive  justice,  the  quota 
ought  to  be  proportioned  not  according  to  the  thing  but  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  person.  “  In  distributive  justice,”  he  says  (q.  lxi.), 
“  the  mean  is  not  taken  according  to  the  equality  of  one  thing 
to  another,  but  according  to  the  proportion  of  things  to  persons, 
so  that  as  one  person  exceeds  another,  the  thing  which  is  given 
to  one  person  may  exceed  that  which  is  given  to  another.”  Hence 
account  is  to  be  made  of  the  social  position  that  the  individual 
occupies,  and  therefore  of  the  need  or  weakness  in  which  he  finds 
himself ;  and  aid  is  to  be  given  him  in  proportion. 

Individual  concurrence  is  the  foundation  of  this  right ;  and 
whoever  culpably  fails  therein  is  justly  deprived  of  it. 

It  is  according  to  these  rules  that  the  State  is  to  conduct  itself 
towards  its  subjects,  when  it  calls  upon  them  to  contribute,  either 
personally  or  really,  to  the  common  wellbeing  ;  when  it  dispenses 
among  them  the  benefits  of  social  life,  howsoever  the  occasion 
may  occur  ;  and  when  it  makes  use  of  their  aid  for  the  true 
progress  of  society. 

In  this  salutary  theory  we  discover  the  foundation  of  that 
social  legislation  which  is  regarded  by  liberal  theorists  as  an 
absurdity,  but  which  is  called  for  by  Christian  principles,  as  well 


DUTIES  OF  THE  STATE  TOWARDS  ITSELF  63 


as  by  the  sad  experience  that  States  without  it  have  gone 
through.  Belgium,  where  the  principles  of  Christian  polity  have 
been  applied  by  the  Government,  has  made  wise  social  provision 
for  the  future,  which  some  other  States  are  gradually,  but  too 
slowly,  imitating. 

Section  V. — Duties  of  the  State  towards  Itself. 

There  is  a  difference  between  the  citizens  and  the  body  of  the 
citizens.  The  latter  has  rights  and  duties ;  the  former  have 
rights  with  duties.  The  social  body,  or  State,  ought  to  have 
such  an  existence  that  it  may  derive  therefrom  all  that  wellbeing 
which  the  citizens  have  a  right  to  expect.  The  State  has,  there¬ 
fore,  a  right  to  be,  and  to  maintain  itself  in  being. 

The  existence  of  a  State  implies  a  logical  process  in  its  history, 
woven  from  the  reasons  of  its  existence.  When  neither  fraud 
nor  falsehood  takes  part  in  it,  there  are  always  lawful  exigencies 
of  the  common  welfare  that  prepare  the  way  for  the  formation 
of  a  State  :  sometimes  these  exigencies  are  not  wanting,  even 
though  bad  and  condemnable  practices  are  employed.  Such  a 
State  has  a  right  to  its  own  preservation,  a  right  that  for  the 
good  of  all  is  a  strict  duty.  Enemies,  internal  as  well  as  external, 
may  strive  to  do  injury  to  a  State.  From  both  it  ought  to  defend 
itself. 

But  here  let  us  be  well  understood.  A  State  preserves  itself 
not  by  force  of  arms,  not  by  iron  gates,  which  effect  a  compulsory 
aggregation ;  but  by  so  acting  that  men  may  find  in  society 
those  advantages  which  they  have  a  right  to  promise  themselves. 
This  is  the  way  to  keep  alive  and  active  in  them  a  consciousness 
of  social  duties,  which  we  have  said  is  the  life  of  a  State.  Thus 
tumults,  seditions,  rebellions  will  be  avoided.  If  the  flame  should 
•  burst  out  in  any  turbulent  mind,  it  will  not  find  nourishment, 
or  it  will  easily  be  stifled.  And  thus  internal  enemies,  almost 
before  they  are  born,  will  be  vanquished.  Let  the  State  do  its 
duty,  let  the  State  be  what  it  ought  to  be,  and  its  scope  will  be 
attained.  There  will  then  be  tranquillity,  there  will  then  be 
peace,  of  which  we  hear  so  much  talk ;  yet  few  consider  that 
substantially  it  consists  in  the  morality  of  the  citizens  and  their 
good  standing. 

“  Those  who  rule  ought  to  defend  society,  because  nature 
entrusted  this  care  to  the  supreme  power  in  such  a  manner  that 
the  public  weal  is  not  only  the  first  law,  but  the  sole  and  whole 
reason  for  the  existence  of  a  government.”  ( Rerum  novarum.) 

Independence  or  autonomy  follows  from  existence.  If  a 
State  exists  lawfully,  it  has  lawfully  a  right  to  act,  to  govern,  to 
regulate  its  affairs,  without  being  hindered  by  any  other  State. 
This  is  called  the  right  of  nationality,  which,  in  the  sense  explained 
by  us,  has  not  only  not  been  condemned,  but  has  been  taught, 
and  for  a  long  time,  by  Catholics. 


64 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


We  said,  however,  “in  the  sense  explained  by  us.”  Because 
there  is  a  right  of  nationality  which  is  properly  called  modern, 
and  on  which  the  declarations  of  Catholics  are  not  unanimous. 
That  we  may  not  be  misunderstood,  it  is  well  to  explain  here 
the  two  senses  in  which  the  word  “  nation  ”  may  be  taken. 

In  the  first  sense,  a  nation  is  a  multitude  of  people  having 
the  same  laws,  under  the  same  sovereign  power,  which  in  a  certain 
manner  holds  in  its  hands  the  energies  and  collects  the  aspirations 
of  the  people  scattered  over  a  greater  or  less  extent  of  territory. 
Here  the  nation  is  equivalent  to  the  State.  The  right  of 
nationality  or  independence  we  have  not  only  not  denied  to  it, 
but  we  have  purposely  defended  that  right. 

The  word  “  nation  ”  is  also  taken  in  an  ethnical  sense,  more 
conformable  to  its  derivation.  It  then  means  a  multitude  of 
people,  who  have  natural]  y  such  a  sameness  of  character,  of 
inclination,  of  language,  of  soil,  that  they  may  well  be  said  to  be 
placed  on  the  same  basis  or  platform.  In  this  sense  it  will 
be  understood  how  a  nation  can  be,  at  least  in  fact,  divided 
into  several  States,  as  also  how  a  State  can  embrace  several 
nations. 

Now’  comes  a  question  :  has  every  nation  a  right  to  indepen¬ 
dence  or  nationality  ?  That  is,  have  people  who  are  so  like 
in  all  respects  as  to  be  considered  a  nation,  a  right  to  form  them¬ 
selves  into  an  autonomous  independent  State  ?  On  this  right, 
Catholics  are  not  agreed. 

Rossignoli  argues  that  it  would  certainly  be  desirable,  on 
account  of  the  great  advantages  that  would  follow  from  it,  to 
have  every  nation  a  State.  He  then  continues  : — “  Until  nowr 
we  have  been  with  nationalists,  with  federalists,  with  advocates 
of  the  universal  pacification  of  peoples.  But  may  not  the  thesis 
be  pushed,  as  it  has  been  pushed  here  in  Italy  by  Mamiami, 
Mancini,  and  others,  so  far  as  to  maintain  that  in  a  people  of  a 
certain  race,  who  live  politically  in  virtue  of  old  historical  facts, 
lawful  or  unlawful,  with  another  people  of  a  different  nationality 
(Piedmont,  for  example,  politically  united  to  Savoy),  there  remains 
a  right  of  secession,  if  they  wish  for  such  ?  Let  us  suppose  that 
Corsica  would  wish  to  bid  farewell  to-morrow  without  more 
ado  to  the  French  Republic,  and  the  Flemish  provinces  to 
Belgium,  and  Aosta  to  Italy,  and  Cyprus  and  Gibraltar  and 
Malta  to  England  :  would  they  have  a  right  to  do  so  ?  And  if 
one  of  the  three  ethnical  nations  that  form  one  nation  in  the 
Swiss  Republic  wished  to  renew  a  Sonderbund ,  separating 
capriciously  from  the  other  two,  would  these  latter  quietly  tolerate 
the  partition  as  lawful  ?  Evidently  this  new  right  would  not  be 
pleasing  to  France,  or  Belgium,  or  Switzerland,  or  at  present  to 
Italy,  which  in  its  time  profited  so  much  by  it ;  not  only  because 
national  self-love  would  not  find  its  advantage  therein,  but  also 
because  a  sufficient  reason  to  justify  these  lacerations  does  not 


DUTIES  OF  THE  STATE  TOWARDS  FAMILIES  65 


appear  and  cannot  be  found.  We  must  except  the  case  in  which 
the  Government  acts  the  part  of  a  tyrant  towards  some  of  the 
people  subject  to  it,  as  happens,  for  example,  at  the  present  day, 
with  the  Cretes  and  Armenians,  both  groaning  under  the  fierce 
and  ignoble  yoke  of  the  seraglio  of  Constantinople. 

“  An  ethnical  nation  is  not  a  mere  geographical  expression;  still 
it  is  not  by  itself  a  juridical  expression,  nor  does  it  denote  a  moral 
person.  The  ethnical  nation  is  virtually,  but  not  actually,  a 
civil  society ;  and,  therefore,  it  cannot  boast  of  a  true  right  to 
independence,  supposing  that  past  historical  facts  have  lawfully 
united  this  people  to  another  of  a  different  race  in  one  political 
body.  Such,  for  example,  would  be  the  Austrian  Empire,  in 
which,  though  somewhat  uncomfortably,  Germans,  Sclavs, 
Magyars,  Rumanians,  and  Italians  live  together.”  {La  Liberia 
Politica,  p.  18.) 

Against  this  view,  Cathrein  lays  down  an  absolute  proposition, 
in  language  as  gay  as  a  triumphal  march. 

Professor  Ferrari,  in  a  style  no  less  jubilant,  opposes  both 
of  them  thus  : — “  Does  there  exist  a  right  of  nationality,  or  has 
each  nation  a  natural  right  to  constitute  itself  a  united  and 
independent  State  ?  I  believe  so ;  and  this  right,  as  D’Azeglio 
observes  ( Miei  Ricordi,  c.  iii.),  appears  to  me  a  logical  deduction 
from  the  Christian  idea,  which,  granting  natural  rights  to  every 
individual,  inasmuch  as  he  is  a  man,  should  of  its  own  tendency 
lead  to  a  recognition  of  the  same  rights  in  nations.  .  .  .  The 
right  of  nationality  therefore  appears  to  me  unquestionable ; 
every  people  has  an  incontestable  right  to  choose  that  sovereign 
and  that  form  of  government  which  will  best  correspond  to  its 
needs  and  promote  its  interests.  .  .  .  Now,  nothing  is  more 
capable  of  understanding  or  promoting  its  interests  than  an 
autonomous  government  of  its  own,  with  united  strength.  There¬ 
fore,  every  nation  has  a  right  to  independence  and  unity.”  {II 
Popolo ,  &c.,  301-2.) 

It  is  a  duty  to  act  in  such  a  manner  that  the  spirit  of  Christian 
Democracy  may  spread  throughout  the  social  body.  We  have 
not  defined  what  ought  to  be  the  form  of  government.  We  do 
not  say  what  arrangements  or  laws  are  necessary  for  a  proper 
social  settlement.  But  we  say  that  it  is  a  duty  that  the  people 
should  be  governed  in  such  a  manner  that  the  common  wellbeing 
may  be  promoted,  with  a  preference  of  aid  for  the  lower  classes. 
This  follows  from  what  we  have  said  regarding  the  nature  of 
civilisation  and  of  Christian  Democracy. 


Section  VI. — Duties  of  the  State  towards  Families. 

The  State  has  under  it  some  organisms  that  it  cannot  absolutely 
destroy.  They  have  a  fife  anterior  to  its  life,  and  this  life  they 

E 


66 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


derive  from  another  source.  Among  these  are  Families,  It  is  the 
duty  of  the  State  to  respect  their  autonomy,  their  rights,  and 
their  independence  of  action;  moreover,  to  facilitate  prosperity 
for  them.  Hence  : — 

1.  It  is  absolutely  forbidden  to  the  State  to  change  the  condi¬ 
tions  of  the  formation  of  the  Family.  A  work  of  nature,  it  ought 
to  remain  such.  The  State  can  and  should  regulate  or  moderate 
the  consequences  of  matrimony  for  the  good  of  all ;  but  should 
accept  it  from  nature,  which  instituted  it,  and  not  pretend  to 
create  or  modify  it. 

2.  The  State  ought  to  guard  the  free  exercise  of  the  authority 
of  parents,  who  are  the  natural  legislators  of  the  Family.  The 
Pope  observes  : — “  A  Family,  no  less  than  a  State,  is,  as  we  have 
said,  a  true  society,  governed  by  a  power  of  its  own,  which  is  the 
paternal  power.  Within  the  limits  determined  by  its  end,  the 
Family  has  therefore  at  least  equal  rights  with  civil  society  in  the 
choice  and  use  of  the  means  necessary  for  its  preservation  and  its 
just  liberty.  We  have  said,  at  least  equal  rights ;  for  since 
domestic  society  is  prior  in  idea  and  in  fact  to  civil,  it  ought  like¬ 
wise  to  have  rights  and  duties  prior  and  more  natural.  If  the 
citizens,  if  families,  having  entered  into  the  association  of  civil 
society,  found  hindrance  instead  of  help,  a  diminution  instead  of 
a  protection  of  their  rights  by  the  commonwealth,  such  association 
would  be  repudiated  rather  than  desired.”  ( Rerum  novarum.) 
To  educate  children,  to  instruct  them,  is  therefore  a  task  of  parents. 
Let  the  State  provide  schools  and  masters  that  Families  w'ould 
not  be  able  to  provide,  but  for  the  development  and  completion  of 
the  educational  work  begun  at  home,  a  work  that  is  not  to  be 
destroyed.  “  The  paternal  authority  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it 
cannot  be  abolished  or  absorbed  by  the  State ;  for  it  comes  from 
the  same  source  as  human  life  itself.”  (Ibid.) 

3.  The  State  ought  to  look  to  the  stability,  unity,  and  prosperity 
of  Families  :  this,  besides  promoting  the  interests  of  the  individual, 
likewise  promotes  those  of  society.  And  as  it  is  very  important 
that  the  Family  should  hold  some  family  property,  the  State 
should  facilitate  the  acquirement  of  it,  and  endeavour  by  oppor¬ 
tune  measures  to  prevent  the  waste  or  ruin  of  it. 

4.  Even  in  functions  that  properly  belong  to  the  Family,  the 
State  can  interfere  for  the  good  of  individuals,  but  only  in  excep¬ 
tional  cases,  when  the  efforts  of  the  Family  fail.  “  Certainly,  if 
a  Family  finds  itself  reduced  to  such  great  distress  that  it  cannot 
possibly  of  itself  rise  therefrom,  it  is  right  that  extreme  necessity 
should  be  relieved  by  public  aid  ;  for  each  Family  is  a  part  of  the 
social  body.  In  like  manner  if  anywhere  a  grave  disturbance  of 
mutual  rights  occurs  within  the  domestic  walls,  let  the  State 
interfere,  and  give  every  one  his  due.  This  is  not  to  usurp  the 
rights  of  citizens,  but  to  safeguard  and  strengthen  them  according 
to  the  laws  of  justice.”  (Ibid.) 


DUTIES  OF  THE  STATE  TOWARDS  THE  CHURCH  67 


Section  VII. — Duties  of  the  State  towards  Communes. 

The  autonomy  of  existence  and  action  that  we  defended  against 
the  usurpations  of  the  State  for  the  Individual  and  the  Family, 
we  here  defend  for  the  Communes,  keeping  to  the  rule  that  the 
existence  of  a  body  corresponds  to  its  end,  and  from  the  end  the 
rights  of  action  are  to  be  determined. 

Above  all,  therefore,  the  State  has  a  duty  of  respect  towards 
the  Communes,  whose  functions  it  should  not,  by  an  unnatural 
concentration,  usurp.  Nor  should  it  permit  other  bodies  to 
obstruct  their  development  or  to  do  them  violence. 

In  saying  so,  we  do  not  intend  to  maintain  that  the  State  has 
no  office  of  supervision  or  direction  of  the  functions  of  the  Com¬ 
munes — as  if,  by  reason  of  respect  for  their  autonomy,  we  main¬ 
tained  that  they  might  lawfully  and  at  pleasure  abuse  their 
powers.  Certainly  not.  We  say  that  the  interference  of  the 
State  in  communal  affairs  ought  to  be  limited,  like  positive  action, 
by  the  duty  that  the  State  has  to  co-ordinate  the  functions  of 
inferior  organisms  to  the  attainment  of  the  common  good,  which 
is  the  scope  of  civil  society.* 

Section  VIII. — Duties  of  the  State  towards  the  Church. 

Whether  it  pleases  you  or  not,  ye  liberals  and  socialists,  the 
existence  of  the  Church  is  an  historical  fact ;  and  you  may  see  it 
towering  aloft  before  you,  unshaken  and  indestructible,  laden  with 
crowns,  resplendent  with  the  tokens  of  its  victories.  A  society  that 

*  A  book  that  has  been  highly  recommended  for  Irishmen,  especially 
Catholics,  who  desire  to  have  an  intelligent  view  of  the  exercise  of  State 
authority  in  Ireland,  is  Dublin  Castle  and  the  Irish  People,  by  Mr.  R.  Barry 
O’Brien.  It  shows  the  character  of  the  chief  officials  and  the  working  of 
the  various  boards  and  departments  in  the  Castle  during  many  generations. 
There  is  no  want  of  facts  or  figures,  some  of  which  appear  almost  in¬ 
credible.  Who,  for  example,  would  suppose  that  the  civil  government  of 
Ireland  costs  £1  8s.  per  head  of  the  population  every  year  ?  Belgium, 
with  four  times  the  trade  of  Ireland  and  a  much  larger  population,  is 
governed  at  about  half  this  expense. 

It  is  hard  for  a  country  to  prosper  when  it  is  overburdened  with  charges. 
From  the  General  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  (1894)  on  the  Financial 
Relations  between  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  signed  by  eleven  of  the 
thirteen  members,  we  learn  that  Ireland  was  then  taxed  beyond  her  fair 
share  to  the  extent  of  about  three  million  pounds  annually.  Yet  this  great 
injustice  still  continues  unremedied.  Nay,  the  annual  expenditure  is  now 
two  millions  more  than  it  was  at  that  time. 

It  does  not  serve  much  for  the  honour  of  England  to  be  spoken  of  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  William  Taft  (in  a  speech  on  St. 
Patrick’s  Day,  1909)  as  follows  : — “  The  history  of  Ireland  from  the  time 
of  the  English  Invasion  to  Catholic  Emancipation  is  a  record  of  misgovern- 
ment,  intolerance,  selfish  exploitation,  and  confiscation  on  the  one  hand, 
and  of  misery  and  squalor  on  the  other.” 

Many  persons  in  the  United  Kingdom  are  unaware  of  the  causes  of  dis¬ 
content  in  Ireland,  and  therefore  it  is  useful  to  mention  where  they  may 
find  some  information  on  the  subject. — Trans. 


68 


THE  ELEMENTS  OE  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


has  its  peculiar  end,  more  universal  than  that  of  the  State,  the 
Church  has  also  special  means  for  the  attainment  of  that  end — its 
own  hierarchy,  its  own  existence.  With  the  State  it  has  the  same 
subject,  man,  on  whom  its  action  and  authority  fall.  The  scope  of 
the  State  is  to  facilitate  for  man  the  attainment  of  wellbeing  here 
on  earth  ;  that  of  the  Church  is  to  lead  him  to  eternal  happiness  in 
heaven,  by  a  due  subordination  of  the  present  life  to  the  future. 
The  two  tasks,  far  from  being  opposed,  help  and  complete  each 
other,  giving  a  large  field  for  the  action  of  Church  and  State. 

To  prevent  any  encroachment  of  one  on  the  sphere  of  the  other* 
their  mutual  relations  must  be  kept  well  before  the  mind.  We 
cannot  better  point  them  out  than  by  having  recourse  to  Leo 
XIII.  In  his  encyclical  Immortale  Dei  he  says  : — 

“  Thus  God  divided  the  government  of  the  human  family 
between  two  powers — namely,  the  ecclesiastical  and  the  civil — 
one  for  the  superintendence  of  divine  things,  the  other  for  that 
of  human  things.  Both  are  supreme,  each  in  its  order.  Each 
has  certain  limits  within  which  it  is  contained,  shown  by  its  nature 
and  its  immediate  purpose ;  each  has  a  sphere  within  which  it 
acts  by  its  own  right.  But  because  the  subject  of  both  powers 
is  one  and  the  same,  and  it  may  happen  that  something,  though 
for  a  different  reason  or  under  a  different  aspect,  may  belong  to 
each  jurisdiction,  Divine  Providence,  the  source  of  each,  has 
fittingly  arranged  their  course.  And  those  (powers)  that  are ,  are 
ordained  of  God  (Bom.  xiii.  1).  Were  it  not  so,  occasions  of 
contest  and  conflict  would  often  arise,  and  man  would  not  seldom 
be  obliged  to  remain  in  doubt,  like  a  traveller  at  a  place  where  the 
road  parts  into  two  roads,  not  knowing  which  to  take — the  two 
powers  commanding  contrary  things  and  conscience  not  per¬ 
mitting  disobedience. 

“  Now,  this  is  repugnant  in  the  highest  degree  imaginable  to 
the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  who,  even  in  the  physical  order, 
which  is  so  much  inferior,  directs  natural  forces  and  their  laws  so 
sweetly  and  harmoniously  that  none  of  them  is  a  hindrance  to 
others,  and  all  conspire  most  happily  to  the  final  scope  of  the 
world.  Therefore,  between  the  two  powers  there  should  be  a 
certain  co-ordination,  which  indeed  is  not  unreasonably  compared 
to  that  by  which  soul  and  body  are  united  in  man.  The  character 
of  the  said  relations  cannot  be  better  known  than  by  considering, 
as  we  have  said,  the  nature  of  each,  and  making  account  of  the 
excellence  and  nobility  of  their  respective  ends,  one  being  directly 
and  chiefly  intended  for  the  care  of  temporal  things,  the  other  for 
the  acquisition  of  supernatural  and  eternal  goods. 

“  Whatever  therefore  in  human  things  is  sacred,  whatever 
pertains  to  the  salvation  of  souls  or  the  worship  of  God,  whether 
it  is  such  by  its  own  nature  or  by  reason  of  the  end  to  which  it  is 
referred,  all  that  falls  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church.  But 
it  is  right  that  other  things,  which  are  of  a  civil  and  political 
nature,  should  be  subject  to  the  civil  authority,  Jesus  Christ 


DUTIES  OF  THE  STATE  TOWARDS  ASSOCIATIONS  69 


having  commanded  that  the  things  of  Caesar  should  be  rendered 
to  Caesar  and  the  things  of  God  to  God.  Nevertheless,  there  are 
some  occasions  when  another  way  of  concord  is  opened  up  to 
secure  the  liberty  of  both — namely,  when  civil  rulers  and  the 
Roman  Pontiff  enter  into  an  agreement  about  some  particular 
point.  In  these  circumstances,  the  Church  offers  the  most 
splendid  proofs  of  her  maternal  goodness,  doing  all  that  she  can 
in  the  work  of  conciliation  and  indulgence.” 

The  encyclical  Sapientice  Christiance  returns  to  the  same  ideas 
thus  : —  , 

“  The  Church  as  well  as  the  State  has  its  own  domain ;  and 
therefore  in  the  administration  of  affairs  neither  of  them  obeys 
the  other  within  certain  limits,  determined  for  each  by  its 
immediate  end.  Whence,  however,  it  is  not  at  all  to  be  inferred 
that  they  ought  to  be  disunited,  much  less  hostile. 

“  And  in  truth  man  by  his  nature  is  not  only  a  physical  being, 
but  also  a  moral  being.  Wherefore,  from  the  tranquillity  of 
public  order,  which  is  the  proximate  end  of  civil  society,  man 
seeks  the  means  of  promoting  his  temporal  welfare  and  still  more 
those  of  perfecting  his  moral  qualities.  ...  At  the  same 
time  he  wishes,  as  is  just,  to  find  in  the  Church  means  adapted  to 
his  religious  perfection.  This  perfection  consists  in  the  know¬ 
ledge  and  practice  of  the  true  religion,  which,  directing  all  the 
other  moral  virtues  to  God,  completes  and  perfects  them.  There¬ 
fore,  in  framing  laws  and  institutions,  regard  should  be  had  to  the 
moral  and  religious  dispositions  of  man,  and  care  taken  for  his 
perfection.  Nor  should  anything  be  commanded  or  forbidden 
except  with  a  view  to  the  special  end  of  each  of  the  two  societies, 
civil  and  religious. 

“  Accordingly,  the  Church  cannot  be  indifferent  about  the  laws 
of  the  State,  not  as  such,  but  inasmuch  as  sometimes,  passing 
beyond  their  due  confines,  they  invade  the  rights  of  the  Church. 
It  is  rather  a  duty  of  the  Church,  assigned  to  her  by  God,  to  resist, 
whenever  civil  law  injures  religion,  and  to  recommend  with  all 
earnestness  that  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel  legislation  may  inspire  the 
laws  and  institutions  of  peoples.  And  because  the  progress  of 
States  depends  very  much  on  the  character  of  rulers,  the  Church 
cannot  show  favour  or  support  to  those  who,  attacking  her,  openly 
mistake  their  rights,  and  endeavour  to  separate  two  things  that 
are  of  their  nature  inseparable — namely,  Religion  and  the  State. 
On  the  other  hand,  she  is  favourable,  as  is  just,  to  those  who, 
having  a  proper  idea  of  the  State  and  of  Christian  Society,  wish 
that  both  should  work  in  harmony  for  the  common  good.” 

Section  IX. — Duties  of  the  State  towards  Private 

Associations. 

Besides  the  Family  and  the  Commune,  the  State  often  finds 
within  its  borders  some  other  associations,  which  men  freely 


70 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


institute  for  their  material  or  moral  improvement.  The  usefulness 
of  these  practical  schools,  as  a  means  of  more  easily  attaining  a 
particular  object,  man  has  no  need  to  learn  from  any  master  : 
nature  itself  teaches  it  to  him.  Hence  religious,  scientific, 
commercial,  industrial,  friendly  societies;  &c.,  are  established 
by  men. 

The  right  of  founding  such  societies,  man  has  received  from 
nature.  This  principle  requires  to  be  well  remembered  by  the 
State,  which  will  find  therein  a  proper  and  secure  basis  for  its 
relations  with  them.  Accordingly — 

1.  The  State  cannot  prohibit  or  oppose  the  forming  of  associa¬ 
tions  that  have  an  honest  scope.  Only  a  false  idea  of  an  absolute 
State,  the  source  of  all  rights  and  laws,  can  attribute  to  the  State 
such  a  right.  The  Pope  attaches  the  greatest  importance  to  this 
point,  saying : — “  Now  although  private  societies  exist  in  a  State,, 
and  are  as  it  were  so  many  parts  of  it,  yet,  speaking  generally  and 
absolutely,  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  State  to  prevent  them. 
Because  the  law  of  nature  grants  to  man  the  right  of  joining  in 
societies,  and  it  is  not  the  business  of  the  State  to  destroy  natural 
rights,  but  to  defend  them.  If  it  forbids  such  associations,  it 
contradicts  itself  ;  for  both  it  and  they  exist  in  virtue  of  the  same 
principle — namely,  that  men  are  naturally  inclined  to  associate.’* 
(Encyc.  Rerum  novarum.) 

By  this  thesis  the  right  of  preventing  associations  from  being 
formed,  or  of  dissolving  them,  if  already  formed,  is  certainly 

not  denied  in  an  absolute  manner  to  the  State.  When  anv  of 

•/ 

these  societies  have  as  their  scope,  not  the  welfare,  but  the  injury 
of  other  societies,  to  forbid  or  to  suppress  them  is  not  so  much  a 
right  as  a  duty.  And  this  for  the  evident  reason  that  a  right 
cannot  be  had  from  nature  to  do  what  frustrates  the  end  of  nature. 
“  There  are  times,  however,  when  it  is  proper  that  the  law  should 
prevent  associations :  as  when  men  combine  for  a  purpose 
evidently  bad,  unjust,  or  dangerous  to  the  commonwealth.  In 
such  cases  the  public  authority  may  justly  prohibit  associations, 
or  dissolve  them  if  formed.”  But  this  right  or  duty  the  State 
has  in  favour  of  nature,  if  we  may  so  speak,  not  to  its  prejudice  ; 
and  care  must  be  taken  not  to  go  to  excess.  Above  all,  the  State 
ought  to  have  a  just  criterion  regarding  what  is  really  good  and 
what  is  not  so,  and  beware  of  mistaking  the  defence  of  its  own 
wellbeing  for  that  of  its  subjects.  u  It  is  necessary,  however,  to 
proceed  with  the  utmost  caution,  lest  the  rights  of  citizens  should 
seem  to  be  violated,  and  evil  should  be  dqne  under  the  pretence 
of  public  good.  Because  laws  do  not  bind  unless  in  so  far  as  they 
are  conformable  to  right  reason,  and  therefore  to  the  eternal 
law  of  God.” 

2.  It  is  also  a  duty  of  the  State  to  facilitate  the  formation  of 
societies,  to  defend  their  rights,  and  to  respect  their  autonomy. 
“  Let  the  State  defend  these  lawful  associations  of  the  citizens  ; 
let  it  not  meddle  with  their  organisation  or  discipline,  which  is 


PERSONAL  CONTRIBUTION 


71 


necessary  for  unity  of  action.  If  the  citizens  have  a  right,  as 
they  actually  have,  to  join  in  societies,  they  have  likewise  an 
equal  right  to  choose  that  kind  of  management  which  they  judge 
most  conducive  to  the  end  proposed.”  (Ibid.) 

Themes. — The  prosperity  of  a  State  is  to  be  judged  by  that  of  the 
citizens — The  injuries  that  a  State  often  does  to  Individuals,  Families,  and 
Communes,  as  well  as  to  private  associations — Respect  for  the  rights  of 
inferior  bodies  was  secured  in  a  theocratic  State — How  philosophically  false 
and  socially  disastrous  is  the  theory  that  makes  the  State  the  source  and 
origin  of  rights  in  various  bodies — How  the  part  that  the  State  ought  to 
take  with  'regard  to  organisations  within  its  borders  may  be  generally 
defined — The  chief  means  by  which  the  State  -can  and  should  come  to  the 
aid  of  the  working  classes. 


CHAPTER  YI. 

THE  RIGHTS  OF  THE  STATE. 

Section  I. — Wellbeing  oe  the  State. 

The  State  has  duties,  because  it  has  an  end  to  attain ;  therefore, 
it  has  also  rights.  This  is  an  evident  enthymeme,  and  is  often 
repeated,  like  the  burden  of  a  song. 

In  regard  to  whom  are  the  rights  ?  In  regard  to  those  towards 
wThom  it  has  duties  ;  that  is  to  say,  its  subjects  or  citizens. 

What  is  the  source  of  these  rights  ?  Nature ;  because  from 
nature  the  State  has  command  to  attain  its  end. 

What  is  the  extent  of  these  rights  ?  As  much  as  is  necessary 
to  give  to  citizenship  the  greatest  possible  wellbeing. 

But  the  wellbeing  of  the  Individual  and  the  Family  is  two-fold  : 
domestic  and  social.  The  latter  integrates,  crowns,  and  perfects 
the  former.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the  social  exists,  if  the  domes¬ 
tic  does  not  also  exist.  It  follows  that  the  State,  in  demanding 
its  rights,  should  impose  the  least  possible  sacrifice  on  Individuals 
and  Families. 

To  what  contributions  is  the  State  entitled  ?  To  two  :  one 
personal,  the  other  real. 

Section  II. — Personal  Contribution. 

Without  the  work  of  man,  nothing  can  be  done.  And  the 
State  requires  that  work  should  be  done  for  it  by  those  to  whose 
advantage  its  functions  tend. 

To  quell  seditions — to  execute  sentences,  with  a  view  to  the 
maintenance  of  private  rights  and  the  promotion  of  the  public 
weal — to  defend  itself  from  external  aggression,  men  are  necessary  ; 
and  men  the  people  ought  to  give  to  the  State. 

Hence,  the  army.  It  cannot  be  done  without.  Care  should  be 
taken  to  have  it,  and  to  have  it  with  the  least  possible  expense  to 


72 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


Families.  There  are  various  modes  of  enrolment,  but  that  is 
certainly  the  best  which  (i.)  makes  account  of  the  preservation  of 
Families  and  their  relative  wellbeing ;  (ii.)  which  arranges  that 
there  will  not,  through  too  much  regard  for  the  army,  be  wanting 
men  of  energy  and  talent  for  other  employments  equally  necessary 
to  society  ;  and  (iii.)  does  not  withdraw  too  many  hands  from 
labour,  for  it  must  always  be  remembered  that,  in  matters  of 
tribute,  necessity  is  the  only  lawful  title,  and  that  every  soldier  is 
a  double  weight  on  social  finances — that  is,  through  what  he 
costs  the  treasury  and  through  what  he  ceases  to  produce  by 
labour.  It  may  be  added  for  the  same  reasons  that  a  man  ought 
not  to  be  kept  a  longer  time  under  arms  than  is  indispensable 
to  make  him  a  soldier. 

From  all  this  we  see  how  unjustifiable  and  condemnable  is  that 
practice  of  the  present  day,  too  widely  spread  and  accredited, 
which  takes  the  name  of  militarism. 

Through  the  necessity  of  defence  the  army  has  become  an 
institution  in  itself,  having  a  reason  for  its  existence  in  civil 
society.  Therefore  the  desire  to  make  it  every  day  more  powerful 
by  land  and  sea.  Therefore  the  fabulous  sums  thrown  away  on 
its  equipment. 

We — most  friendly  towards  an  army,  a  force  that  acts  in  the 
hands  of  the  executive  power  for  the  greatest  good  of  all — are 
enemies  of  the  present  militarism,  which  exhausts  our  resources 
and  is  a  cause  of  many  private  and  public  misfortunes. 

Section  III. — Real  Contribution. 

To  procure  the  common  wellbeing,  money  is  indispensable. 
This  ought  to  be  supplied  to  the  State  by  the  subjects  ;  and  the 
supply  takes  the  name  of  imposts  or  tributes.  On  the  lawfulness 
of  them,  we  do  not  think  that  there  is  any  need  to  spend  words  : 
it  is  evident. 

The  quantity,  however,  is  limited  by  social  exigencies  and  by 
the  capabilities  of  the  citizens.*  But  by  social  exigencies  we  are 

*  Speaking  of  taxation,  Mr.  O’Brien,  in  his  book,  Dublin  Castle,  quotes 
the  following  figures  for  the  year  ending  the  31st  March,  1907  : — 

Ireland’s  gross  contribution  to  Imperial 

Expenditure  ...  ...  ...  £9,490,000 

Cost  of  Administration  ...  ...  7,678,500 

Balance  available  for  Imperial  Expenditure  £1,811,500 

Scotland’s  gross  contribution  to  Imperial 

Expenditure  ...  ...  ...  £15,837,000 

Cost  of  Administration  ...  ...  5,962,500 

Balance  available  for  Imperial  Expenditure  £9,874,500 

He  then  makes  a  very  just  comparison.  “  Contented  Scotland,”  he 
says,  “  with  a  population  of  4,472,103,  contributes  £15,837,000  to  the 


REAL  CONTRIBUTION 


73 


not  to  understand  that  fury  with  which  some  enthusiastic  politi¬ 
cians  are  seized  for  raising  theatres,  monuments,  and  palaces,  nor 
revenges  taken  by  the  government  party,  but  those  works  which  are 
required  to  give  the  people  a  comparatively  easy  life,  and  which  turn 
in  some  manner  to  the  benefit  of  all,  rich  and  poor,  high  and  low. 

Imposts  and  Taxes. — The  gathering  up  of  money,  as  arranged 
by  the  exchequer,  happens  in  two  ways.  The  subject  is  obliged 
to  pay  an  annual  contribution  to  the  State  ;  and  the  subject  who 
comes  within  certain  conditions  ought  to  pay  it  without  more  ado. 
This  is  the  way  of  imposts.  A  subject  who  avails  himself  of  a 
service  that  the  State  provides  for  the  convenience  of  all,  is  obliged 
to  pay  a  sum  to  the  treasury  for  it.  This  is  the  way  of  taxes  ;  for 
example,  the  school  tax  and  the  postal  tax.11 

Lawfulness  of  Taxes. — A  question  may  be  asked  :  is  it  just  that 
the  State  should  exact  a  tribute  from  those  who  use  an  institution 

Exchequer.  Discontented  Ireland,  with  a  population  of  4,458,775,  con¬ 
tributes  the  gross  sum  of  £9,490,000.  The  administration  of  Scotland, 
in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the  Scottish  people,  and  consistently 
with  the  prosperity  of  the  country,  costs  £5,962,500.  It  costs  £7,678,500 
to  keep  Ireland  poor  and  disaffected.” 

He  enters  into  many  details  regarding  the  enormous  expenditure  of  money 
in  Ireland,  not  properly  applied  for  the  benefit  of  the  country.  Thus, 
the  Lord  Lieutenant  receives  £20,000  a  year  (household,  fuel,  and  other 
charges  raise  the  expense  to  £35,074),  while  the  President  of  Switzerland 
(about  half  the  size  of  Ireland,  yet  with  a  population  over  three  millions) 
receives  only  £720. 

He  concludes  with  some  weighty  words  from  Mr.  Redmond.  “  When 
Englishmen  ask  us  what  we  want  we  answer  in  a  sentence,  A  measure  of 
legislative  autonomy  similar  to  that  enjoyed  by  any  of  your  self-governing 
Colonies  or  Dependencies.  If  you  want  an  illustration  look  at  Canada, 
look  even  at  the  Transvaal.  The  Transvaal  is  a  new  country,  yet  it  enjoys 
legislative  autonomy  ;  Ireland,  a  more  ancient  kingdom  than  England, 
does  not.” 

What  a  telling  fact  that  Australia,  New  Zealand,  Canada,  the  Cape, 
the  Transvaal,  all  have  their  own  Parliaments  !  None  of  the  members 
sit  in  the  English  Parliament,  nor  have  they  any  desire  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Sexton,  who  is  deeply  versed  in  finance,  has  shown  that  a  fair  taxation 
for  Ireland  after  the  Union  would  have  been  an  average  of  £3,000,000  a 
year.  But  Ireland  has  been  obliged  since  then  to  pay  on  an  average 
£6,000,000  a  year.  At  this  rate,  during  the  years  from  1800  to  1894,  she 
has  been  unjustly  overtaxed  to  the  extent  of  £282,000,000.  How  proper, 
therefore,  would  it  be  that  England  should  now  strive  to  make  some  repara¬ 
tion  to  Ireland  for  the  crying  wrongs  of  the  past ! 

Many  of  the  English  people  are  well  disposed  towards  Ireland,  but  perhaps 
the  greatest  obstacle  in  the  way  of  obtaining  good  laws  is  the  House  of 
Lords.  It  consists  of  men  of  property,  who  are  determined  to  hold  what 
they  possess.  In  1810  they  refused  to  efface  from  the  Statute-book  a  law 
that  inflicted  the  penalty  of  death  for  stealing  goods  to  the  amount  of  five 
shillings.  In  1893  they  wrecked  Mr.  Gladstone’s  Home  Rule  Bill,  after  it 
had  passed  triumphantly  through  the  House  of  Commons. 

When  will  men  understand  that  the  peace,  welfare,  and  happiness  of  the 
world  can  never  be  so  well  promoted  by  building  “  dreadnoughts  ”  and 
inventing  other  frightful  instruments  of  destruction  as  by  practising  the 
Christian  virtues  of  justice  and  charity  ?  Have  men  no  other  laws  to  guide 
them  but  those  of  tigers  and  wolves  ? — Trans . 


74 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


established  by  it  for  the  public  ?  In  principle,  we  do  not  see 
how  this  can  be  denied.  These  institutions  are  necessary  for 
society.  The  use  is  not  therefore  necessary  for  every  individual ; 
for  some  it  is  often  superfluous,  and  even  injurious.  This  is  one 
of  the  cases  in  which  there  is  a  little  friction  between  the  good  of 
society  and  private  good.  The  system  of  taxes  smooths  matters. 
The  government,  out  of  the  imposts  received,  provides  institutions 
for  society,  consolidating  it  and  giving  it  liberty  :  the  individual 
who  makes  use  of  them,  pays  the  tax.  To  supply  for  the  tax  by  an 
impost  would  be  to  impose  a  sacrifice  on  all,  and  would  be  contrary 
to  the  principle  that  the  individual  contribution  for  the  common 
wellbeing  should  be  made  with  the  least  possible  sacrifice.  The 
system  of  taxes  has  certainly  its  inconveniences ;  but  to  avoid  or 
to  lessen  them,  moderation  in  taxation  ought  to  be  better  than 
an  abolition  of  the  system.  There  are  some  institutions  of  which 
it  is  well  that  families  make  little  use — let  the  tax  be  higher. 
There  are  others  the  use  of  which  is  generally  required — let  the 
tax  be  moderate.  Always  let  the  law  make  account  of  those 
who  have  not  means,  for  whom  the  use  of  an  institution  may  be 
necessary,  and  it  may  even  be  advantageous  for  the  public. 
Let  the  tax  be  then  lowered,  or  dispensed  with  altogether. 

Direct  and  Indirect  Imposts. — An  impost  is  called  direct  when 
it  is  required  from  persons  on  whom  the  sacrifice  of  disbursement 
really  falls.  It  is  called  indirect  when  it  is  required  from  persons 
who  are  recouped  by  others  :  this  happens  when  dealers  have  to 
buy  at  a  higher  rate  from  the  manufacturers  of  certain 
merchandise,  but  really  lay  the  burden  on  those  who  use  it,  to 
whose  prejudice  they  indemnify  themselves  by  selling  at  an 
increased  price. 

We  believe  it  well  to  observe  at  once  that  indirect  taxes  fall 
nearly  always  on  the  consumer,  direct  ones  on  the  producer. 
As,  therefore,  the  consumption  of  certain  goods  is  necessary 
for  all  men,  and  that  of  others  superfluous,  the  indirect  tax 
generalised  is  of  necessity  grievous  for  the  poor,  to  whom  the  loss 
of  a  few  pence  may  be  a  serious  injury,  while  it  would  not  cause 
the  rich  a  thought. 

The  indirect  impost  is,  therefore,  of  its  nature  antidemocratic. 
This  characteristic  requires  to  be  corrected,  by  abolishing  duty 
on  those  things  which  are  strictly  needed,  such  as  salt,12  or 
lowering  it  very  much  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  increasing  it 
on  things  of  luxury,  which  are  not  used  from  any  need,  but  for 
the  comfort  of  life. 

Fundamental  Principles  of  a  Just  Tributary  Law. — From  the 
nature  of  the  relations  that  exist  between  the  social  body  and  its 
component  parts,  the  rules  of  tribute  ought  to  be  derived.  We 
have  shown  it  many  times.  Belations  in  society  run  in  different 
directions  :  some  go  from  the  circumference  to  the  centre,  and 
are  the  contributions  of  individuals  to  the  State  ;  others  go 


REAL  CONTRIBUTION 


75 


from  the  centre  to  the  circumference,  and  are  the  benefits  that 
society  imparts  to  its  members.  The  final  result  of  all  this 
activity  is  in  favour  of  individuals.  But  this,  not  as  the  conse¬ 
quence  of  a  contract  well  weighed  and  stipulated  on  a  utilitarian 
basis,  rather  because  such  was  an  ordinance  of  nature,  which 
desires  the  good  of  all  by  means  of  society,  composed  of  all,  and 
living  by  the  aid  of  all. 

The  idea  often  repeated  is  here  again  re-echoed — that  society 
is  a  living  body  and  men  are  its  members.  But  in  a  living  body 
the  strong  members  are  expected  to  act  strongly  ;  the  weak, 
weakly.  There  is,  therefore,  a  solid  principle  that  ought  to  stand 
as  a  foundation  of  the  relations  between  the  citizens  and  the 
social  body.  It  may  be  enunciated  thus  :  Every  man,  however 
much  he  lives  for  his  own  advantage,  is  bound,  according  to  his 
condition,  to  live  for  the  advantage  of  society. 

The  social  contribution  is  a  withdrawal  of  efficiency  from 
individual  and  domestic  goods — just  as  in  an  animal  body  the 
function  exercised  by  each  of  the  members  is  a  waste,  more  or 
less,  of  it.  This  must  be  taken  into  account.  Hence  another 
principle  :  The  social  contribution  ought  to  be  reckoned  according 
to  the  sacrifice  that  it  costs  anyone  to  make  it. 

Therefore,  there  are  two  coefficients  of  the  social  contribution — 
one  objective,  which  regards  the  strength  of  position  in  life;  the 
other  subjective,  which  regards  the  sacrifice  of  private  wellbeing. 
Together  they  give  us  the  amount  of  the  social  contribution. 
Erom  these  principles  we  draw  the  practical  rules  of  a  just  tribu¬ 
tary  system  : — 

1.  The  impost  ought  to  fall  on  the  income,  not  on  the  capital. 
In  good  economy,  the  capital  ought  not  to  be  exhausted.  It 
does  not  count  as  an  article  of  consumption.  It  is  one  of  the 
chief  fountains  from  which  flow  the  streams  of  individual  and 
social  wellbeing. 

The  word  “  income  ”  is  here  taken  in  its  widest  sense — that  is, 
embracing  all  the  returns  from  movable  and  immovable  property. 

A  most  vicious  transgressor  against  distributive  justice,  doing 
injury  to  both  public  and  private  good,  is  that  system  of  direct 
imposts  which  is  regulated  entirely  or  nearly  so  by  the  land 
impost.  It  is  wholly  prejudicial  to  that  industry  which  is  the 
first  source  of  all  wellbeing — agriculture.  It  favours  the  narrow¬ 
minded  views  of  speculating  capitalists,  who,  free  from  money 
embarrassments,  have  a  field  for  enriching  themselves  more  and 
more  every  day.  It  destroys  the  foundation — namely,  land 
property — on  which  the  stability  of  families  depends.13 

2.  The  impost  ought  to  fall  on  that  part  of  income  which 
exceeds  the  requirements  of  life.  Before  giving  a  contribution 
to  society,  the  individual  has  a  right  and  a  duty  to  live  in  himself 
and  by  himself  :  society  itself  is  intended  for  the  wellbeing  of  the 
individual.  To  put  an  impost  on  what  is  required  for  private 


76 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


life  is  to  set  society  in  contradiction  with  its  end.  Therefore, 
it  is  necessary  that  a  minimum  of  property  should  be  exempt 
from  imposts. 

3.  From  the  surplus  left  after  the  requirements  of  life,  the 
impost  ought  to  be  of  the  least  possible  amount — so  as  to  procure 
social  good  with  the  least  sacrifice  of  individual  good,  for  the 
increase  of  which  society  itself  has  been  established. 

4.  The  excellence  of  an  impost  may  follow  from  other  con¬ 

siderations  ;  such  as  (i.)  the  little  displeasure  that  it  causes  in  the 
minds  of  the  contributors  ;  (ii.)  the  convenience  of  the  time 

for  payment ;  (iii.)  the  easy  and  inexpensive  mode  of  payment ; 
(iv.)  the  little  opportunity  given  for  fraud. 

Proportionality  and  Progressiveness  of  Imposts. — An  impost  is 
said  to  be  proportional  when  it  falls  on  wealth  in  a  direct  ratio 
to  the  amount  thereof.  For  example,  a  family  has  an  income 
of  £50  and  pays  £1  :  this  impost  is  said  to  be  proportional  if 
another  family  that  has  ten  times  as  much  income  (£500)  pays 
ten  times  as  much  tribute  (£10). 

On  the  other  hand,  an  impost  is  said  to  be  progressive  if  the 
quota  of  tribute,  instead  of  remaining  constant,  increases  with 
the  growth  of  taxable  matter.  Suppose  that  an  income,  while  it 
remains  under  £50,  pays  seven  per  cent. ;  while  it  rises  higher 
up  to  £500,  twelve  per  cent. ;  then  up  to  £2,500,  fifteen  per  cent. — 
and  you  will  have  progressive  impost. 

Which  of  the  two  ought  to  be  adopted  in  a  well-ordered 
society  ?  Some  maintain  the  proportional  impost,  which  they 
regard  as  socially  just  because  it  calls  equally  on  the  citizens 
to  concur  for  the  common  wellbeing.  We  hold  that  only  by  a 
forgetfulness  of  the  true  idea  of  society  can  such  an  assertion 
be  made  ;  and  we  answer  that  the  proportional  impost  calls 
indeed  proportionally  on  the  economic  position  of  individuals 
to  concur  to  the  common  good,  but  not  on  the  citizens.  He 
who  makes  account  only  of  the  first  principle  (proportionality) 
will  maintain  the  proportional  impost.  On  the  other  hand, 
he  who  thinks  that  the  first  principle  requires  to  be  completed 
by  the  second  (progressiveness)  will  say  with  us  that  the  con¬ 
currence  to  the  common  good  ought  to  be  made  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  sacrifices  imposed  by  it  on  private  good  may  be  relatively 
equal. 

But  if  y ou  take  £1  from  him  who  owns  £50,  and  only 
£10  from  him  who  owns  £500,  is  there  equality  of  sacrifice 
here  ? 

The  progressive  impost,  therefore,  springs  from  an  idea  of 
solidarity,  which  teaches  that  the  soul  of  society  ought  to  be 
well-ordered. 

We  repeat :  society  is  a  body,  and  individuals  are  its  members. 
But  why  should  the  members  measure  their  function  according 
to  the  function  of  the  weakest,  and  fulfil  it  only  three  or  four 


REAL  CONTRIBUTION 


77 


times  more  effectively,  when  tliev  are  capable  of  doing  it  fifteen 
or  twenty  times  more  so  ? 

Among  Catholics  the  progressive  impost  has  counted  strong 
supporters,  such  as  Lugo,  Taparelli,  Liberatore,  &c.  ;  and  to-day, 
after  the  official  pronouncement  made  in  its  favour  at  the  Congress 
of  Padua,  we  may  say  that  it  forms  an  unquestionable  part  of  the 
Christian  Democratic  Programme. 

We  will  not  yield  to  the  temptation  of  quoting  from  a  number 
of  authors ;  for  it  would  delay  us  too  long.  But  we  must  not 
omit  one  luminous  passage  in  the  speech  of  Toniolo  at  the  Congress 
of  Padua  : — “  Permit  me  to  add  that  this  financial  doctrine 
corresponds  with  the  economic  doctrine  of  the  decreasing  -final 
utility  of  riches.  Of  three  equal  units  of  riches  possessed  by  one 
person,  the  value  of  the  first  unit,  which  serves  for  the  indispens¬ 
able  wants  of  life,  is  Iqigh ;  but  the  value  of  the  second,  which  is 
employed  for  accessory  wants,  is  less  ;  while  the  value  of  the 
third,  which  is  intended  for  saving,  or  perhaps  for  squandering, 
is  still  lower.  If,  therefore,  the  financier,  in  order  to  treat  all 
equally, wishes  to  collect  the  same  quota  of  value  by  title  of  impost 
on  each  unit  of  riches  possessed,  he  ought  to  lean  more  heavily 
on  the  second  unit  than  on  the  first,  and  still  more  heavily  on  the 
third  than  on  the  second.  Let  this  criterion  be  applied  to  three 
graduated  contributions,  and  the  equity  of  the  progressive  test 
will  be  evident.  In  this  sense,  the  true  proportional  impost 
is  the  progressive  one.”  ( Atti ,  p.  262.) 

The  Proportionality  of  the  Indirect  Impost. — What  we  have  just 
said  regarding  progressivity  refers,  of  course,  only  to  the  direct 
impost,  which  is  capable  of  both  proportionality  and  progres¬ 
siveness.  On  the  other  hand,  the  indirect  naturally  escapes 
this  two-fold  control.  Falling,  not  on  the  income,  but  on  what 
is  consumed  of  the  income,  it  is  necessarily  progressive  in  an 
inverse  sense — that  is,  it  increases  the  loss  to  him  who  has  less 
means.  This  is  easily  understood.  “  The  indirect  impost  is 
proportional  to  the  consumption ;  but  the  consumption  is  not 
proportional  to  the  riches.  He  who  consumes  more  of  a  com¬ 
modity,  pays  more  in  proportion  to  the  impost  that  falls  on  it. 
But  not  with  equal  proportion  does  he  who  is  more  rich  consume 
more.  A  concrete  case  will  make  the  matter  more  apparent. 
Let  us  take  wine,  for  example,  considered  in  regard  to  a  workman 
who  earns  £50  a  year  and  a  rich  man  who  has  an  income  of  £5,000 
a  year.  The  former  consumes,  we  shall  suppose,  a  pint  of  wine 
every  day  ;  the  latter,  even  if  he  wished  to  intoxicate  himself  and 
all  Ins  family,  certainly  could  not  consume  a  hundred  pints  every 
day.  Yet  this  quantity  would  be  required  in  order  that  the  wine 
tax  should  be  proportional  for  both.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
other  commodities,  common  to  the  rich  and  the  poor,  such  as 
flour,  salt,  oil,  &c.  This  is  a  great  and  irremediable  disadvantage 
of  the  indirect  impost ;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  not  proportional,  but 


78 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


progressive  in  an  inverse  ratio  to  riches.  The  poorer  a  man  is, 
the  more  he  has  to  pay.”*  (Liberatori,  Principii ,  pp.  309-310.) 


Themes. — Instruction  is  one  of  the  chief  needs  of  a  people  who  wish  to  be 
civilised  :  right  and  duty  of  the  State  to  provide  it — A  monopoly  of  in¬ 
struction  is  not  a  right  of  the  State  :  it  is  an  abuse,  it  is  a  wrong  done  to 
human  liberty — It  is  one  thing  to  abandon  instruction,  and  another  to 
respect  private  liberty — Social  importance  of  public  works — Duties  on 
articles  of  consumption  are  often  out  of  proportion  and  contrary  to  justice — 
Whether  the  progressive  impost  is  a  kind  of  confiscation — An  impost  ought 
evidently  to  have  these  three  characteristics  :  necessity,  proportion  with 
national  wealth,  and  exclusion  of  privilege — Make  a  comment  on  the  follow¬ 
ing  words  of  Bastiat :  “  When  it  is  seen  among  a  people  that  private 

services  are  invaded  and  turned  into  public  services,  the  law  becomes  a 
weapon  of  spoliation,  because  it  has  for  its  object  to  change,  under  the 
plea  of  establishing,  an  equality  of  services.”  (Armonie  Econ.,  c.  xvii.) 


CHAPTER  VII. 

AUTHORITY. 

Section  I. — A  Natural  Hierarchy. 

We  have  elsewhere  observed  that  nature  has  constituted  human 
beings  in  a  kind  of  natural  hierarchy.  Or  we  might  say  that 
society  is  somewhat  like  a  pyramid,  which  ascends  step  by  step 
from  its  broad  base  to  the  top.  It  requires  solidity  and  stability. 

Now,  in  order  that  society  may  flourish,  it  is  necessary  that 
everyone  should  have  his  own  space,  and  work  therein.  And  he 
should  work  not  only  for  his  own  advantage,  but  for  that  of  all 
the  other  members  of  society. 

What  will  keep  everyone  at  his  post,  and  co-ordinate  his  action 
for  the  benefit  of  all  ?  Nature,  which  has  provided  for  the  unity 
of  material  bodies  by  certain  laws  that  are  called  of  cohesion, 
gravity,  &c.,  has  provided  for  the  unity  of  the  moral  body,  which 
is  society,  by  moral  laws.  It  is  they  that,  observed,  give  the 
human  family  the  true  form  of  society,  and  violated,  make  a 
chaotic  mass  of  restless,  discontented,  turbulent,  unhappy  beings. 

Yet  these  laws  are  not  enough.  The  components  of  the  moral 
body  are  rational  beings,  with  their  own  thoughts,  their  own 
desires,  their  own  free  powers  of  action.  They  are  also  defective, 
some  by  malice,  others  by  natural  frailty.  All  this  implies  a 
scattering  of  operations,  which,  not  rightly  directed,  can  ill  arrive 
at  the  attainment  of  the  common  good.  Hence  the  necessity  of 
a  regulating  principle,  which  may  make  all  the  actions  of  indivi¬ 
duals  converge  to  the  general  welfare. 

This  element  is  civil  authority.  Either  do  not  imagine  any 
society  among  men,  or  imagine  it  under  the  guidance  of  public 

*  The  burden  of  a  tax  should  be  considered  not  according  to  what  is 
given,  but  to  what  is  left. — Trans. 


ORIGIN  OF  AUTHORITY 


79 


power.  “  Since  no  society  can  exist  unless  there  is  some  one  at  the 
head  of  it,  moving  every  member  efficaciously  and  similarly 
towards  a  common  end,  it  follows  that  authority  is  necessary  by 
which  civil  society  may  be  ruled.”  (Encyc.  Immortale  Dei.) 

The  physiocratics,  like  Rousseau,  had  a  fine  dream  that  in  the 
most  ancient  times  men  were  ruled  without  obedience  to  any 
sovereign  power.  But  history  is  not  written  with  the  dreams  of 
Rousseau  or  of  any  other  such  dreamer.  History,  so  far  as  it 
extends,  tells  us  of  social  power,  which  men  obeyed  ;  and,  in  parts 
to  which  it  does  not  extend,  it  leaves  us  to  infer  that  men,  precisely 
because  men,  did  the  same.  For  the  .rest,  physiocracy  would 
certainly  be  a  beautiful  idea,  but  the  misery  in  which  man  is 
placed  is  a  fact ;  and  dreams  in  opposition  to  facts  are  always 
dreams,  even  those  of  a  Rousseau. 

From  what  has  been  said  of  political  authority,  it  follows  : — 

1.  That  authority  has  the  same  end  as  society — namely,  to  pro¬ 
mote  the  common  wellbeing  ;  that  therefore  a  government  does  not 
exist  for  itself,  but  for  the  good  of  its  subjects.  “  The  government 
ought  to  be  for  the  advantage  of  the  citizens,  because  the  only 
reason  why  some  men  are  over  others  is  that  they  may  see  to  the 
general  welfare.”  (Encyc.  Immortale  Dei.)  Justly  therefore  are 
we  entitled  to  condemn  despotism,  tyranny,  oligarchy,  every 
abuse  of  supreme  power  that  turns  to  the  prejudice  of  the  citizens. 
“  On  no  account  should  it  occur  that  civil  authority  would  be 
employed  for  the  benefit  of  one  or  a  few,  because  it  was  established 
for  the  common  good  of  all.”  (Ibid.) 

2.  That  it  ought  to  be  in  the  State  alone.  This  is  as  clear  as 
it  is  necessary.  If  there  were  many  authorities,  none  would  be 
supreme  or  sovereign.  They  would  require  to  have  a  supreme 
authority,  which  would  subject,  unite,  and  subordinate  them.14 

Section  II. — Origin  of  Authority. 

Authority  is  desirable  in  the  social  body.  All  admit  it,  except 
those  who  seek  disorder. 

Those  who  view  society  from  a  materialistic  standpoint,  and 
therefore  give  no  reason  for  its  existence  or  give  a  reason  that  is 
no  explanation,  do  not  know  at  what  point  they  can  best  attack 
an  established  authority.  Yet  authority  is  of  so  much  importance 
that  the  life  of  the  social  body  depends  on  it.  A  false  idea,  which 
would  set  up  a  weak  authority,  will  have  a  long  task,  and  will 
then  only  shake  the  walls  of  the  social  edifice. 

Others  have  recourse  to  pantheistic  explanations.  Let  him 
who  wishes  to  walk  with  his  head  in  the  midst  of  dense  clouds 
concern  himself  about  them. 

More  commonly  the  origin  of  authority  is  said  to  be  in  the  will 
of  the  people.  The  expression  has  a  fine  sound  :  a  pity  that  it 
has  no  substance,  or  rather  is  fraught  with  practical  consequences 
that  its  followers  are  the  first  to  condemn. 


80 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


Our  doctrine  is  more  simple,  though  not  so  high-sounding. 

A  short  argument  :  nature  is  the  source  of  that  without  which 
a  natural  institution  cannot  exist  ;  society,  a  natural  institution, 
cannot  exist  without  public  power  ;  therefore,  public  power  is 
from  nature. 

Remove  the  word  nature ,  and  put  God  in  its  stead.  He,  the 
Lord  of  all  things,  is  the  author  of  sovereign  power,  as  He  is  the 
author  of  man  and  of  the  universe.  No  other  origin  can  be  given 
to  public  power  that  does  not  destroy  it. 

There  is  question  of  commanding  men  :  who  can  do  it  but  a 
Being  superior  to  men  ?  “  Authority,”  says  Pope  Leo  XIII., 

“  no  less  than  society,  is  from  nature,  and  therefore  from  God. 
Hence  it  follows  that  public  power  in  itself  can  be  derived  only 
from  God.  For  God  alone  is  the  true  and  supreme  Lord  of  the 
world,  to  whom  all  creatures  should  be  submissive.  So  that  those 
who  have  the  right  of  commanding,  have  it  from  no  other  source 
than  God,  the  great  Lord  of  all.  There  is  no  power  hut  from  God 
(Rom.  xiii,  1).”  (Encyc.  Tmmortale  Dei.) 

This  basis  of  sovereign  power  is  the  only  one,  not  merely  because 
it  is  the  true  one,  but  because  it  is  the  only  one  possible.  To 
pretend  to  replace  it  by  another  is  folly,  because  every  substitute 
will  be  either  inferior  to  or  equal  to  man,  and,  as  such,  will  be 
without  the  right  of  commanding  men. 

This  immovable  basis  being  given  to  public  power,  Christian 
sociology  provides  for  the  safety  of  the  social  body,  for  public 
order,  for  civil  prosperity.  Behold  the  explanation  why,  outside 
of  our  walls,  there  is  nothing  to  be  found  but  conspiracy,  rebellion, 
revolution,  anarchy. 


Section  III. — Form  of  Government. 

Social  authority,  residing  in  the  subject  that  exercises  it,  is 
called  government.  As  this  subject  may  be  one,  or  many,  or  all, 
there  are  various  forms  of  government.  One  person  alone  can 
certainly  exercise  the  supreme  command,  and  then  there  is  the 
monarchical  form  or  a  monarchy.  If  the  power  rests  in  a  class  of 
the  great,  then  there  is  the  aristocratic  form  or  an  aristocracy. 
If  instead  all  the  people  hold  the  public  power,  then  there  is  the 
democratic  form  or  a  democracy.  Thus  there  are  three  principal 
forms.  Others  might  be  made  by  a  combination  among  these. 
Then  we  should  have  mixed  forms,  of  which  there  are  few  :  one 
of  them  is  the  constitutional  monarchy. 

Which  form  is  to  be  preferred  ?  Above  all  let  it  be  clearly 
understood  that,  according  to  natural  justice,  none  of  them  has  a 
right  of  preference  to  the  others.  God,  who  is  the  Author  of 
authority  in  the  social  body,  has  not  specially  pointed  out  in 
which  He  wishes  it  to  rest.  Any  form  of  government  can  fulfil 
the  will  of  God,  who  wishes  that  there  should  be  authority  ;  and 


REPRESENTATIVE  FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT  81 


it  suffices.  “  The  sovereign  authority  is  not  by  itself  necessarily 
bound  to  any  particular  form  of  government  :  it  can  justly  assume 
one  or  another,  provided  that  such  is  really  capable  of  promoting 
the  public  weal.”  (Encyc.  Immortale  Dei.)  The  question  is 
therefore  to  be  solved  by  a  consideration  of  the  people’s  good, 
which  is  the  only  reason  for  the  existence  of  supreme  power. 

So  much  being  granted,  there  is  no  need  for  long  arguments 
to  prove  that  any  one  of  the  aforesaid  forms  is  good  in  itself,  and 
calculated  to  promote  the  common  wellbeing.  On  this  point, 
Catholic  theologians  agree  :  St.  Thomas  taught  it,  and  Pope 
Leo  XIII'  teaches  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  each  of  those  forms 
presents  special  advantages,  but  at  the  same  time  is  exposed  to 
particular  abuses. 

Monarchy  would  seem  to  be  the  ideal  of  governments,  because 
the  unity  of  the  subject  helps  much  towards  sympathy,  firmness, 
and  expedition  in  command.  But  one  only  subject,  however 
excellent,  will  always  be  only  one  man.  As  such,  he  can  easily 
err,  either  through  ignorance  or  through  malice,  from  which 
originates  despotism  or  tyranny.  Democracy,  which  stands 
at  the  other  extreme,  presents  a  special  and  most  desirable 
advantage,  if  viewed  in  regard  to  the  autonomy  of  the  citizens. 
In  point  of  fact,  it  enlarges  the  popular  mind,  breathes  the  spirit 
of  freedom,  feels  and  provides  for  the  wants  of  the  people.  Subj  ect 
to  social  duties  and  sharing  in  social  benefits,  it  is  more  capable 
of  weighing  the  exigencies  of  the  common  wellbeing  and  the 
sacrifices  that  ought  to  be  imposed  on  private  wellbeing.  On 
the  other  hand,  who  does  not  see  that  democracy  also  presents 
inconveniences,  due  to  the  malice  of  men  ?  The  consciousness 
of  power  can  rouse  cupidities  in  the  people,  and  lead  them  to 
rebellion  or  to  demagogy.  Aristocracy  has  likewise  its  advantages 
and  inconveniences.  Among  the  latter,  not  the  least  is  the  danger 
of  oligarchy,  which  is  a  tyranny  so  much  the  worse  as  it  is  worse 
to  be  under  the  power  of  several  bad  men  than  of  only  one. 

Therefore  ?  What  are  we  to  conclude  ?  Therefore  every  form 
of  government  is  excellent  for  those  who  wish  it  to  be  so.  It 
is  a  question  of  justice,  and  justice  does  not  consist  in  the  form 
but  in  the  exercise  of  authority. 

For  the  rest,  the  manners,  the  customs,  the  character  of 
a  people,  as  well  as  their  greatness,  may  fit  them  better  for  one 
form  than  for  another.  Speaking  in  the  abstract,  we  may  say 
that  that  form  is  the  best  which  would  try  to  realise  in  itself  the 
best  qualities  of  all.  This  would  be  the  mixed  form  in  which  the 
monarchical  element  predominates,  tempered  by  aristocracy 
and  democracy. 

Section  IV. — The  Representative  Form. 

Among  the  mixed  forms,  that  which  seems  to  have  won  the 
favour  of  peoples  at  the  present  day  is  the  representative.  In 

F 


82 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


Europe  it  is  almost  generally  adopted  :  great  praise  has  been 
given  and  is  still  given  to  it. 

It  is  reduced  to  the  following  heads  : — (i.)  The  sovereignty 
rests  in  the  people,  who  exercise  it  by  a  chamber  of  deputies, 
elected  by  them.  Here  we  have  a  democratic  basis,  (ii.)  A 
chamber  of  magnates,  chosen  from  the  classes  most  distinguished 
for  their  learning,  wealth,  nobility,  or  virtue.  They  are  called 
senators.  They  balance  and  temper  any  immoderateness  in  the 
deputies.  Here  we  have  the  aristocratic  element,  (iii.)  A  king, 
who  reigns  by  the  will  of  the  nation,  and  sanctions  with  his 
signature  the  laws  passed  by  the  two  chambers — laws  that  without 
the  royal  signature  are  of  no  value.  The  king,  however,  has  not 
the  free  exercise  of  the  executive  power.  This  belongs  to  the 
ministers,  who  alone  are  responsible  for  it.  Hence  the  saying, 
“  The  king  reigns,  but  he  does  not  govern.7' 

Deputies,  senators,  and  king  are  to  conduct  themselves 
according  to  the  Constitution,  which  is  a  fundamental  law  of 
government,  a  kind  of  contract  entered  into  between  king  and 
people. 

Is  the  representative  form  good  ?  In  itself,  it  is  exceedingly 
good.  It  is  better  than  the  simple  forms,  not  because  these  are 
not  in  themselves  very  good,  but  because  it  takes  good  from 
all  three,  and  gives  reason  to  hope  that  inconveniences  will  thus 
be  more  easily  avoided. 

The  representative  form  brings  together  the  people,  the  choicest 
men,  and  the  king.  All  very  well — a  magnificent  sight !  But  in 
reality  does  it  include  the  people,  the  choicest  men,  and  the  king  ? 
The  king  is  there,  but  counts  only  for  what  he  is  considered. 
Are  the  people  there  ?  have  they  their  representatives  there  ? 
It  is  an  old  question.  There  is  the  name  of  representatives  of 
the  people,  but  the  true  representatives  are  not  there.  If  we  had 
the  people  organised,  and  professional  representation  had 
assembled  the  true  delegates  of  the  people,  who,  having  common 
interests  with  the  people,  would  take  the  interests  of  the  people 
to  heart,  then  with  the  liveliest  enthusiasm  would  we  hail  the 
deputies,  in  whom  we  should  recognise  the  people  themselves. 
But  the  elections  of  to-day,  made  according  to  the  system  of 
majorities  (we  have  already  referred  to  it),  do  not  give  us  in  truth 
the  representatives  of  the  people,  but  the  representatives  of  that 
party  which,  at  the  time  of  the  election,  is  most  powerful  in 
influence,  most  clever  or  astute  in  management,  and  most 
abounding  in  money. 

The  parliament  being  thus  constituted,  it  is  next  to  impossible 
that  it  should  work  well.  It  is  apt  to  fall  speedily  into  a  sickly 
state,  a  state  of  disastrous  inefficiency,  which  is  called  parlia¬ 
mentarism,  This  word  denotes  a  compendium  of  all  intrigues, 
all  plots  against  the  ministers  and  the  king,  all  evil  artifices 
that  are  employed  by  a  group  of  men  who  hold  power  for  every 
purpose  except  the  one  for  which  it  was  given. 


THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  PEOPLE 


83 


And  is  true  aristocracy  represented  by  the  chamber  of  senators  ? 
Let  us  hear  Rossignoli : — 

“  That  the  Senate  may  correspond  wisely  to  its  moderating 
office,  it  is  necessary  above  all  that  it  should  exercise  in  reality, 
and  not  merely  in  name,  the  legislative  power.  The  nomination 
of  the  senators  ought,  therefore,  to  be  left,  not  to  the  Crown  or  in 
an  unlimited  number,  but  in  a  fixed  number  and  to  a  body  chosen 
by  the  electors,  so  that  they  may  represent  in  the  government 
something  not  represented  either  by  the  king  or  by  the  Chamber. 
Deplace,  for  example,  in  his  work,  Senats  et  Chambres  Hautes 
(Hachette,  1891),  would  wish  that  the  Senate  should  be  an 
assembly  of  intelligent  men  ;  but  I  would  add  that  it  should  also 
be  an  assembly  of  virtuous  men,  for  then  we  might  expect  to 
find  in  it  good  human  laws,  which  may  be  regarded  as  a  portion 
of  the  eternal  laws  of  justice. 

“  To  have  a  Senate  truly  conservative,  we  should  not  forget 
the  three  branches  of  which  the  ancient  parliaments  consisted 
before  absolutism  had  cast  its  baneful  shadow  on  Europe — - 
namely,  the  ecclesiastical,  the  baronial,  and  the  popular.  The 
popular  would  now  be  represented  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 
The  baronial,  feudalism  having  fallen,  would  no  longer  have  any 
reason  for  existence,  and  might  be  usefully  replaced  by  a  pro¬ 
fessional  representation  of  classes  and  interests.  The  Senate 
would  then  have  men,  nominated  by  legally  constituted  bodies, 
who  could  represent  the  various  departments  of  science, 
literature,  art,  agriculture,  industry,  commerce — men  of  the 
sword  and  men  of  state,  great  lawyers  and  great  financiers — 
in  short,  the  good  sense  of  the  nation.  But  also  the  ecclesiastical 
branch — that  is,  a  representation  of  the  Episcopate,  which  may  be 
sufficient  to  prevent  anti-Christian  legislation — will  always  be 
essential  to  a  Senate  that  wishes  to  act,  as  it  ought,  with  modera¬ 
tion.”  ( Concetto  delV Autorita,  &c.,  p.  79.) 


Section  V. — The  Sovereignty  of  the  People. 

The  ideas  set  forth  in  the  previous  sections  will  help  to  show 
what  is  to  be  thought  about  the  much-vaunted  sovereignty  of 
the  people.  A  little  distinction  clears  the  true  from  the  false 
contained  in  this  well-known  formula,  which  may  have  a  double 
meaning. 

The  first  meaning  is  the  assertion  of  those  who  say  that  authority 
originated  from  the  people — that,  outside  of  the  popular  will, 
there  cannot  be  any  source  of  social  power.  This  is  the  thought 
of  liberal  sociology,  and  comes  straight  from  Rousseau’s  theory 
on  the  origin  of  society.  We  have  not  time  to  talk  about  it. 
The  origin  of  society  and  the  origin  of  authority  are  on  the 
same  logical  string.  If  you  attach  society  to  the  will  of  the 
people,  you  must  also  attach  authority  to  it,  for  authority  rules 


84 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


society.  This  is  a  most  deplorable  theory,  from  which  come, 
like  threads  from  a  spool,  the  greatest  part  of  our  present  social 
disorders.  The  Pope,  in  his  encyclical  Vigesimum,  speaks  of  it 
thus  : — “  Supposing  that  authority  to  rule  comes  formally  from 
the  consent  of  the  multitude,  and  not  from  God,  the  supreme 
and  eternal  source  of  all  power,  it  loses  its  most  august  character 
in  the  eyes  of  subjects,  and  degenerates  into  an  artificial 
sovereignty,  resting  on  a  shaky  changeable  foundation,  such  as 
is  the  will  of  men.  And  are  not  the  effects  of  it  seen  even  in  the 
public  laws,  which  too  often,  instead  of  being  written  reason 
(ratio  scrip ta,  the  dictates  of  reason  expressed  in  writing),  represent 
only  a  numerical  force,  and  the  prevailing  will  of  political  power  ? 
Accordingly,  the  licentious  appetites  of  the  multitude  are 
flattered,  the  rein  on  popular  passions  is  slackened,  while  it  fills 
cities  with  disturbers  of  a  forced  tranquillity,  reserving  to  itself 
the  right  of  having  recourse  in  extreme  cases  to  violent  and 
sanguinary  repressions.” 

Christian  sociology,  which  maintains  that  God  is  the  only 
source  of  power,  absolutely  rejects  this  ill-omened  sovereignty 
of  the  people. 

But  we  can  also  understand  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  as 
meaning  a  sovereignty  in  fact.  As  God  has  not  pointed  out, 
either  mediately  or  immediately,  the  subject  in  whom  authority 
should  rest,  undoubtedly  it  can  also  rest  in  the  people,  who  will 
then  be  truly  sovereign.  And  this  is  that  popular  sovereignty 
which  is  not  only  lawful,  but  may  also  become  highly  efficient. 

Section  VI. — Functions  of  Social  Authority. 

The  duty  of  guidance,  which  the  social  power  has  to  practise 
in  regard  to  its  subjects,  requires  (i.)  that  it  should  issue  acts  of 
direction,  which  are  called  laws  :  (ii.)  that  it  should  keep  an  eye 
on  the  lives  of  the  citizens,  in  order  to  see  if  the  laws  are  observed  ; 
and  (iii.)  that  it  should  insist  on  the  observance  of  these  laws — 
punishing  transgressors.  These  three  functions  of  authority  pre¬ 
suppose  a  triple  power  in  it — namely,  the  legislative,  the  judicial, 
and  the  executive.  A  few  words  on  each  : — 

1.  The  Legislative  Power. — To  discuss  whether  the  civil  authority 
can  make  laws  is  to  discuss  whether  it  ought  to  exist.  It  exists 
for  this  purpose.  The  civil  law,  therefore,  is  a  general  rational 
command,  by  which  authority  obliges  all  the  citizens  to  concur 
for  the  common  good.  Men  are  bound  to  obey  the  laws  :  this 
obedience  is  a  natural  duty.  To  deny  it  would  be  to  say  that 
nature  intends  authority  for  idleness  or  amusement.  But  a  law 
ought  to  be  a  true  law  in  order  to  require  this  obedience —that  is, 
it  ought  to  be  rational. 

To  be  such,  the  law  ought  (i.)  not  to  go  against  other  laws  that 
are  superior  to  it — namely,  the  natural  law  and  the  divine  law. 


FUNCTIONS  OF  SOCIAL  AUTHORITY 


85 


It  is  well  known  that  there  exist  even  to-day  some  State- 
worshippers  who  place  in  the  civil  law  the  very  source  of  morality, 
and  call  everything  good,  honest,  and  just  that  the  law  prescribes. 
According  to  this  theory,  if  there  existed  a  majority  of  socialist 
deputies  in  a  parliament,  they  might  lawfully  and  officially 
declare  in  favour  of  communism.  Can  anything  be  more  absurd  ? 
(ii.)  The  law  ought  to  have  as  its  object  the  public  welfare,  not 
merely  private  welfare,  (iii.)  The  law  ought  to  be  made  and 
promulgated  by  him  who  has  the  plenitude  of  legislative  power, 
according  to  the  form  in  which  this  power  becomes  actually 
concrete.  An  absolute  king  is  the  legislator ;  a  constitutional 
monarch  is  not  such.  In  the  latter  case,  the  legislative  power 
lies  with  the  two  chambers,  and  then  the  laws  decreed  have 
force  only  in  a  case  of  public  necessity  that  admits  of  no  delay. 

2.  The  Judicial  Power. — It  is  immediately  linked  with  the 
legislative,  because  the  authority  to  make  laws  would  be  of  little 
avail  without  that  of  watching  over  their  observance  and  punishing 
their  violation.  The  judicial  power  is,  therefore,  an  intrinsic 
part  of  sovereignty,  which,  to  avoid  mistakes,  entrusts  it  to  wise 
and  upright  men,  called  judges  or  magistrates. 

Civil  society  is  like  a  body,  whose  living  members  are  held 
together  by  a  variety  of  forces.  These  forces,  binding  the 
elements,  are  the  rights  and  the  duties  that  they  have  towards  one 
another  and  towards  society.  From  their  exercise  a  twofold  result 
should  follow — namely,  the  greatest  possible  private  good  of 
individuals,  and  the  common  good,  which  is  the  completion 
or  crown  of  the  private  good.  When  any  part  of  society  is 
faithful  to  these  laws,  faithful  to  its  rights,  faithful  to  its  duties, 
we  say  that  juridical  order  reigns  therein. 

But  it  may  happen  that,  through  a  greediness  of  increasing 
private  good,  some  element  violates  the  duty  that  binds  it  to  its 
like  or  to  society  in  general.  It  may  also  be  that  between  two 
elements  there  arises  a  controversy  on  the  existence  or  the 
absence  of  a  right.  In  these  cases  it  is  said  that  juridical  order  is 
broken,  or  at  least  disturbed.  It  must  then  be  reconstituted  for 
the  good  of  society.  Hence  the  judicial  power,  which  is  to  judge 
in  the  criminal  court,  when  public  or  private  right  has  been 
injured,  and  in  the  civil  court,  when  the  reciprocal  rights  of 
individuals  among  themselves,  or  even  with  the  State,  require 
a  clear  and  authoritative  decision. 

3.  The  Executive  Power. — To  this  expression  we  must  give  a 
meaning  somewhat  broad.  By  the  exercise  of  the  legislative 
and  judicial  powers,  such  as  we  have  described  them,  it  is  too 
evident  that  the  sovereign  authority  will  not  fully  succeed  in 
accomplishing  its  mission  of  giving  being,  as  Taparelli  says, 
to  society.  That  small  remainder  of  authority,  if  I  may  so  speak, 
which  is  necessary  for  it,  in  order  that  society  may  be  what  is 
to  be  desired,  a  moral  body,  with  the  greatest  possible  wellbeing, 
is  contained  in  the  executive  power.  The  duties  of  the  executive 


86 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


power  are  reduced  to  four  by  Rossignoli — namely  (i.)  to  carry 
out  the  provisions  made  by  tbe  legislative  power  and  the  sentences 
passed  by  the  judicial  power  ;  (ii.)  to  procure  order  and  peace, 
defending  them  from  enemies  internal  as  well  as  external ; 
(iii.)  to  represent  the  nation  before  foreigners ;  and  (iv.)  to  promote 
the  public  wellbeing,  moral  as  well  as  material. 

The  exercise  of  this  power,  as  is  evident,  extends  (i.)  to  the 
appointment  of  public  officials,  from  which  an  organised  adminis¬ 
tration  will  result ;  (ii.)  to  the  public  strength,  which  ought 

to  flow  in  some  manner  from  the  energies  of  the  nation ;  and 
(iii.)  to  the  public  treasury,  in  which  the  tributes  of  the  citizens 
are  deposited. 


Themes. — It  is  not  fair  to  say  that  the  statutes  of  a  society  are  only 
conventionalities  :  the  members  ought  to  recognise  that  certain  laws  conduce 
to  the  object  of  the  society — In  like  manner  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  laws  are 
nothing  but  an  expression  of  the  general  will — As  laws  ought  to  lead  society 
towards  its  end,  and  as  a  true  law  cannot  be  conceived  without  this  scope, 
he  who  makes  laws  should  keep  in  view  the  end  towards  which  society 
tends — Herein  consists  the  difference  between  true  and  false  democracy — 
Revolutions  are  often  the  logical  evolutions  of  false  principles  applied  in 
the  government  of  a  country — Should  the  laws  be  equal  for  all  ? 


NOTES  TO  THE  FIRST  PART 


Note  1,  p.  1. — Here  and  there 
in  the  course  of  our  work  it  may 
he  seen  how  much  civil  society  is 
indebted  to  Christianity.  Mean¬ 
while,  we  wish  to  remark  that  such 
a  thing  is  quite  natural  for  whoever 
considers  that  the  object  of  Our 
Saviour  was  to  lead  men  to  their 
last  end.  If  the  goods  of  this 
world — whatever  they  are — are 
goods  for  man  in  so  far  as  they  are 
efficacious  means  for  the  attainment 
of  the  end,  it  is  natural,  we  repeat, 
that  Christianity,  by  the  virtues 
which  it  commands  and  the  vices 
which  it  condemns,  should  become 
eminently  social.  Society,  as  we 
shall  soon  see,  is  a  body  resulting 
from  a  multitude  of  bodies,  but 
living  bodies,  earnestly  striving 
towards  happiness.  To  each  of  these 
bodies  is  assigned  its  own  orbit  or 
sphere  of  action.  If  everyone  re¬ 
cognises  this,  and  checks  his  desire 
of  trenching  on  the  limits  of  others, 
the  moral  body  is  in  good  condition. 
If  one,  if  many,  if  all  wish  to  be 
without  control,  it  is  a  game  in 
which  the  strongest  wins ;  the 
equilibrium  is  broken,  the  body  is 
necessarily  undone.  Now,  to  keep 
men  at  their  posts  is  what  virtue 
desires ;  and  Christianity,  which 
teaches  this,  gives  efficacious  means 
to  attain  it — helps  wonderfully  to 
promote  social  harmony,  which 
would  be  perfect  if  Christianity  were 
universally  followed. 

Man  is  naturally  social.  See  how 
Christ  did  not  come  to  destroy  but 
to  perfect  nature.  He  wishes  that 
man  should  be  saved  in  society,  in 
that  society  which  bears  the  name 
of  the  Church,  to  make  part  in 
which  all  the  human  family  who 
aspire  to  temporal  wellbeing  are 
called.  Could  the  action  of  this 
Church  be  less  than  useful  to  social 
order  ?  Could  it  be  said  that  the 
moral  perfection  of  the  individual 
man  would  be  a  hindrance  to  his 
civil  perfection  ?  That  sounds 
too  contradictory.  The  beneficent 
action  of  the  Church  for  the  ad¬ 


vantage  of  civil  society  has  been 
often  referred  to  by  Leo  XIII.  in 
his  public  acts,  especially  in  his 
encyclical  Immortale  Dei .  Therein 
we  read:  “The  Church  therefore, 
always  consistent  with  herself,  if  on 
the  one  hand  she  rejects  excessive 
liberty,  which,  with  private  and 
public  harm,  leads  to  licentiousness 
or  to  slavery,  on  the  other  willingly 
and  joyfully  embraces  the  progress 
that  comes  with  time,  when  it  truly 
promises  to  increase  the  prosperity 
of  the  present  life,  which  is  a  kind 
of  race-course  to  life  without  end.” 

Note  2,  p.  2. — A  question  here 
presents  itself :  where  are  we  to 
begin  and  how  are  we  to  proceed  in 
the  study  of  sociology  ?  Is  it  by 
the  inductive  or  the  deductive 
method  ? 

We  must  take  care  not  to  be  ex¬ 
clusive.  Each  method  gives  much 
help  ;  and  to  each  we  must  have 
recourse.  There  are  moral,  un¬ 
doubted,  incontestable  principles  in 
human  nature,  which  have  logical 
consequences  in  social  phenomena. 
The  method  that  leads  you  to  the 
study  of  these  phenomena  is  the 
deductive.  There  are  also  real  facts 
in  social  life,  recurring  at  intervals, 
happening  according  to  certain 
rules.  From  these  facts  you  come 
by  the  inductive  method  to  a 
knowledge  of  fixed  and  constant 
laws.  Hence  the  importance  of 
statistics  in  studies  of  this  kind. 

Our  method  is  therefore  twofold, 
deductive  and  inductive. 

Note  3,  p.  8. — According  to 
Pope  Leo  XIII.,  the  end  of  civil 
society  ...  is  the  common 
good,  that  is,  a  good  in  which  each 
and  every  one  has  a  proportional 
share.  (See  Encyc.  Immortale  Dei.) 

Note  4,  p.  16. — There  are  two 
types  of  professional  unions — the 
pure  and  the  mixed.  The  first  type 
is  that  which  assembles  in  two 


88 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


distinct  bodies,  the  workmen  and 
the  masters  who  are  engaged  in 
the  same  industry.  In  this  type  a 
meeting  for  the  settlement  of  con- 
troversies  and  other  matters  is  held 
by  delegates  or  arbitrators  from 
both  unions.  The  second  type  is 
that  which  assembles  in  only  one 
association,  the  workmen  and  the 
masters  having  an  affinity  of 
interests. 

The  theoretical  question,  which 
type  is  to  be  preferred  ?  admits  of 
much  discussion,  with  little  result. 
As  for  the  practical  part,  we  think 
that  we  may  well  suggest  it  in  words 
that  we  take  from  a  letter  addressed 
by  Toniolo  to  Count  Medolago 
Albani.  The  young  student  will 
here  find  another  thesis  of  supreme 
importance  first  explained. 

Behold  how  the  distinguished 
master  speaks  : — 

“  The  last  decade  of  the  19th 
century  (owing  in  great  part  to  the 
wise  impulse  given  by  the  Supreme 
Pontiff  in  Rerum  novarum)  spread 
social  works  with  rapid  progress  for 
the  Christian  restoration  of  the 
people.  But  the  social  political  anti- 
Christian  reaction ,  which  from 
countries  beyond  the  Alps  found  its 
way  into  our  peninsula,  cut  short 
this  reconstructive  process  in  May, 
1898,  and  scattered  all  our  institu¬ 
tions.  A  moment  of  trial,  before 
which  we  confess — if  that  can  help 
us  to  a  holy  and  noble  regret — we 
were  all  unequal  to  the  task  per¬ 
mitted  for  us  by  Providence.  The 
Kulturkampf  in  Germany  stirred  a 
people  of  heroes,  and  bound  fast 
the  great  nucleus  of  the  Centre, 
which  gave  power  and  advantage  to 
all  German  Catholics,  even  to  this 
day.  The  furious  passage  of  those 
few  months  of  absurd  persecution — 
which  did  so  much  for  socialism — 
left  us  divided  and  degraded  by  a 
useless  war  of  words,  like  a  nation 
about  to  die.  Loud  and  strong 
language  of  protest  and  encourage¬ 
ment  to  the  Italian  people  came 
from  the  Pope  alone.  We  shall  not 
now  perpetuate  the  error  with 
mutual  recriminations.  All  of  us, 
old  and  young,  have  had  our  share 
in  the  fault  against  the  lawful 
expectation  of  the  nation  and  of 
religion.  With  this  salutary  con¬ 


fession — which  we  candidly  make 
in  our  few  journals — nothing  remains 
for  us  but  to  be  confounded,  and  to 
be  charitable  towards  one  another, 
in  the  hope  of  a  better  future. 

“  The  stirring  of  a  new  life  was 
heard.  The  theoretical  and  practical 
ideas  of  a  popular  programme  were 
elaborated  among  us,  more  than 
elsewhere,  so  that  Italy  appeared 
as  the  land  of  Christian  Democracy. 
The  Pope,  fortifying  it  with  limits 
and  guarantees,  consecrated  it,  and 
made  it  universal ;  and  thus,  taken 
up  with  spirit  by  intelligent  and 
ardent  young  men,  it  was  by  them 
spread  everywhere.  They  planted 
in  every  quarter  the  banner  of 
Christian  Corporations,  on  which 
that  programme,  with  great  historic 
meaning,  especially  at  the  present 
day,  is  summarised. 

“  And  thus  to-day  there  is  every¬ 
where  a  spring-time  of  sodalities,  of 
popular  classes,  which — to  interpret, 
mv  illustrious  friend,  one  of  vour 
thoughts — both  gladdens  and  per¬ 
plexes  us. 

“  Yes,  a  spring-time  that  gladdens 
us.  The  encyclical  Graves  de 
communi  appeared  and  was  wisely 
intended  as  a  rein  on  the  democratic 
movement — teaching  caution  and 
the  conditions  of  success — but  at 
the  same  time  what  a  powerful  and 
unexpected  impulse  !  Who  could 
have  imagined  the  concordant  echo 
that  followed  from  so  many  Bishops 
in  Italy,  in  favour  of  energetic 
popular  action  ?  And  the  desire  for 
professional  unions,  which  was  so 
little  regarded  at  the  Congress  of 
September,  1900,  in  Rome — who 
would  have  supposed  that  it  would 
so  soon  flourish  again  in  so  many 
corporate  sodalities,  springing  up 
everywhere  ! 

“  Yes,  a  spring-time  that  gladdens 
us,  but  perplexes  us.  The  Socialists 
understood  well — from  us  as  from 
other  sources — the  hopes  of  Christian 
renovation  contained  in  such  an 
initiative  of  the  Pope,  the  Clergy, 
Catholics  in  general,  ardent  youths  ; 
and  they  attacked  the  rising 
Catholic  corporations  with  weapons 
of  infidelity,  with  abusive  squibs 
scattered  freely  among  the  people. 
Will  the  members  of  our  sodalities 
hold  out  against  these  assaults  ; 


NOTES  TO  THE  FIRST  PART 


89 


and  will  the  defence  be  sufficient 
against  attempts  on  faith  greater 
than  any  that  ever  the  people  of 
Italy  endured  before  ? 

“  On  the  other  hand,  will  these 
new  plants  have  intrinsic  strength 
to  grow  into  mature  and  fruitful 
trees  ?  And  you,  my  illustrious 
friend,  besiege  me  with  practical 
demands  for  the  solution  of  such 
distressing  doubts,  which  seem  to 
settle  in  the  question  :  How  are  we 
to  prevent  this  vegetation  from 
failing,  and  make  sure  that  our 
Class  Representation  will  become 
permanent  and  vigorous  ? 

“  Perhaps  you  will  find  some 
answer  to  the  problem,  truly 
decisive,  in  the  history  and  general 
tendency  of  the  European  corpora¬ 
tive  movement,  as  also  in  the 
refutation  of  some  more  common 
objections  that  I  have  endeavoured 
to  sum  up  in  the  work  that  I  have 
dedicated  to  you.  Others — simple 
and  candid,  but  modest — I  shall 
here  set  forth  briefly. 

“  The  object  is  to  form  a  new 
popular  class — on  parallel  lines  with 
other  superior  ones — not  only  in  its 
organic  arrangement,  but  especially 
in  the  spirit  that  should  animate 
it ;  and  therefore  our  old  men  spoke 
of  the  esprit  de  corps.  Let  us,  not 
deceive  ourselves  :  a  social  palingen¬ 
esis  is  impossible  without  a  moral 
and  religious  renovation.  We  must 
saturate  the  corporations  with  a 
Christian  Catholic  spirit.  They 
ought  to  be  great  practical  schools 
of  ethics  and  religion.  You  have 
said  it  admirably  in  your  remarks 
on  corporations. 

“The  test  of  faith  is  the  to  be 
or  not  to  be  of  future  class -associa¬ 
tions.  If  we  have  different  types  of 
corporations  in  England  and  in 
Germany,  they  are  due  to  historical 
and  local  causes  at  work  in  Protes¬ 
tant  or  sceptical  regions — in  short, 
to  abnormal  causes,  which  cannot 
last,  and  which  here  and  there 
already  show  signs  of  change,  but 
which  in  no  case  can  be  a  rule  for 
us  or  for  the  normal  life  of  society. 

“  This  educational,  religious, 
moral  end  proposed  for  our  people 
assembled  in  corporations  truly 
Christian,  as  pointed  out  and 
enjoined  by  the  Pontiff,  will  be  the 
vital  sap  of  the  new  sodalities. 


Here  will  be  the  field  for  the  Clergy 
of  the  coming  times  ;  and  whoever 
can  work  |best  in  it  will  find  fruits 
most  ready  and  most  ripe. 

44  But,  for  charity’  sake,  let  us 
not  be  stopped  in  so  important  a 
beginning  by  any  stumbling-block 
or  difficulty.  The  essential  point 
consists  in  training  the  corporations 
to  faith  and  Christian  morality. 
This  banner  can  never,  should  never, 
be  lowered ;  and  what  remains 
impossible  for  us  is  to  write  at  the 
head  of  the  statutes  the  rationalistic 
rule  that  the  members  will  be  neutral. 
But  should  the  word  Catholic  be 
always  inserted  in  their  title  ? 
Generally  speaking,  yes ;  and  the 
people  are  rarely  inclined  to  take 
offence  at  it ;  but  in  exceptional 
cases,  if  it  were  necessary  to  remove 
some  extrinsic  obstacle,  we  take 
care  of  the  intrinsic  purpose,  and 
omit  for  a  while  the  name. 

“  As  for  the  final  purpose  of 
wishing  to  form  Catholic  corpora¬ 
tions,  does  it  imply  that  workmen 
will  not  be  admitted,  unless  they 
are  strictly  observant  in  matters  of 
religion  ?  This  is  a  question  for 
practical  good  sense.  Unsteady  and 
incautious  workmen,  as  the  Pope 
remarked,  are  tempered  to  faith 
and  morals  within  the  precincts  of 
Christian  corporations  ;  so,  observ¬ 
ing  certain  limits  of  prudence,  let 
us  open  our  arms  with  a  charitable 
toleration.  If  our  credulous 
countrymen  unfortunately  enter 
the  ‘  Labour  Rooms,’  they  become 
atheists  or  socialists  ;  if  tepid  work¬ 
men  do  not  disdain  to  repair  to  our 
4  Unions,’  it  is  to  be  hoped  that 
they  will  become  good  Christians. 
But  will  the  religious  practices  that 
may  be  proposed  by  the  ingenious 
piety  and  charity  of  our  priests  and 
the  presidents  of  our  sodalities,  be 
obligatory  ?  Certainly  not.  The 
examples  of  all  Europe  attest  that 
only  those  which  are  free  are 
acceptable  and  fruitful.  But  if 
any  one,  already  connected  with  a 
4  Socialist  Club,’  asks  to  be  enrolled 
in  a  4  Catholic  Union,’  are  we  to 
admit  him  ?  Why  close  the  way 
against  conversion,  when  there  are 
so  many  victims  of  illusion  and 
violence  ?  On  condition,  however, 
that  the  enrolment  by  rule  in  our 
ranks  will  be  a  sincere  pledge  of  a 


90 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


speedy  joining  in  fact.  But  enough 
of  casuistry,  intended  to  give  a 
practical  illustration,  not  to  change 
a  systematic  theory. 

“  The  systematic  principle  of 
wishing  to  form  Christian  institu¬ 
tions  that  may  be  socially  full  of 
life,  is  so  practical,  that  it  becomes 
to-day  one  reason  more  why  we 
should  have  two  kinds  of  autono¬ 
mous  corporations,  that  of  masters 
and  that  of  workpeople,  co-ordinated 
together,  and  not  merely  one  mixed 
of  the  two  elements.  Have  you  ever 
thought,  my  illustrious  friend,  what 
would  become  of  our  religious  pur¬ 
pose  in  the  two  different  cases  ? 

It  is  not  hazardous  to  say  that  our 
people  by  themselves,  in  simple 
‘  Labour  Unions,’  will,  sooner  or 
later,  under  the  direct  influence  of 
the  clergy,  become  thoroughly 
Catholic,  and  Christ  will  truly  return 
on  the  shoulders  of  the  people. 
Confused  in  mixed  corporations 
with  masters,  who,  as  a  rule  (with 
praiseworthy  exceptions),  are  in 
present  circumstances  and  will  be  ; 
for  a  long  time,  if  not  sectaries,  for 
the  most  part  liberals — which  means 
rationalists — or  at  all  events  cleric  o- 
liberals,  it  is  to  be  feared  that 
through  such  influence  our  work¬ 
people  would  be  declared  neutral, 
or  that  religion  would  be  maintained 
only  as  an  engine  of  control — 
generating  popular  aversion  towards 
it — or  at  least  that  the  action  of 
the  clergy  would  be  impeded,  and 
that  these  social  organisms  would 
be  converted  into  electoral  clubs, 
for  the  service  of  the  masters  and 
of  political  programmes  more  or  less 
antipapal.  All  these  things  would 
be  great  obstacles  to  the  flourishing 
of  mixed  corporations,  even  where 
they  would  find  their  natural  home, 
for  example,  in  regions  where 
metayage  or  mezzadria*  prevails. 
And  this  shows  how  the  religious 
problem  presents  itself  to  all. 

“  A  second  condition  to  give  life 
to  the  renovated  corporations  is 
that  the  people  should  find  in  them 
all  the  aid  required,  not  only  to 
defend  their  class  interests,  but  to 
promote  their  material,  civil,  and 
moral  wellbeing.  This  is  the  great 
lesson  that  comes  to  us  not  only 


from  the  history  of  the  past,  but 
from  the  marvellous  and  increasing 
power  of  corporations  in  England, 
Belgium,  Germany,  France,  &c. 

“  It  is  proper  that  we  should  also 
introduce  and  multiply  in  these 
corporate  citadels  all  the  popular 
practices,  existing  or  possible,  that 
converge  to  the  elevation  of  the 
respective  classes.  Thus  we  should 
have  workmen’s  banks  and  rural 
chests,  insurance  societies,  co-opera¬ 
tive  societies,  rent  boxes,  inns  for 
the  people,  St.  Vincent  de  Paul 
Societies  (giving  help  at  home), 
refuges  and  schools  for  children, 
schools  of  art,  educational  confer¬ 
ences,  circulating  libraries,  pious 
and  charitable  confraternities,  places 
of  conversation,  and  in  fine  games 
and  a  theatre.  Consider,  my  ex¬ 
cellent  friend,  what  stability  these 
corporations  wTould  acquire  when 
each  member,  after  being  enrolled 
in  a  particular  class,  would  apply 
himself  to  a  few  of  those  popular 
practices  which  develop  and  prosper 
under  the  guidance  of  wise  leaders. 
In  a  short  time  he  would  find  himself 
bound  to  the  corporation  by 
numerous  interests ;  so  that  to 
separate  from  it  would  be  to  break 
through  a  series  of  concentric  circles 
of  wellbeing.  Consider  also  how  the 
people  within  the  precincts  of  these 
vast  associations,  serving  them  and 
managed  by  them  ( for  the  people 
and  by  the  people ),  would  act  with 
all  their  mind  and  heart.  They 
would  live  like  one  great  family, 
which  would  facilitate  for  them  all 
the  lawful  satisfactions  of  a  proper 
and  dignified  life.  And  if  this 
family  were  perfectly  Catholic  in 
spirit,  what  a  bright  fireside  of 
Christian  social  life  would  it  present ! 

“Nor  are  these  mere  fancies. 
Apart  from  the  great  example  of 
English  ^Trade-Unions,’  it  suffices 
to  recall  the  similar  Catholic 
societies  in  Belgium,  such  as  the 
‘  Boerenbond  ’  and  the  ‘People’s 
House  ’  ;  and  the  institutions  of  the 
Abbe  Cetty  at  Mulhouse  in  Alsace, 
so  well  adapted  for  the  elevation  of 
the  working  classes. 

“  An  immense  undertaking,  I 
admit ;  but  indispensable  to  give 
life  to  future  corporations,  and,  for 


*  See  Second  Part,  Chapter  VII.,  Section  2. — Trans. 


NOTES  TO  THE  FIRST  PART 


91 


the  rest,  not  impossible  among  us, 
where  few  of  these  institutions  yet 
exist.  The  point  therefore  is  to 
multiply  them,  and  place  them 
under  the  shield  of  the  old  sodalities, 
proceeding  by  degrees.  And  it 
seems  to  me  more  urgent  to  begin 
with  the  following  : — (i.)  Mutual 
Help,  well  represented,  much  more 
than  at  present,  according  to  social 
Christian  ideas,  not  merely  for 
material  loans ;  (ii.)  a  Secretariate 
for  the  People — for  special  business 
of  the  members — together  with  the 
office  of  finding  occupation  for  the 
unemployed ;  and  (iii.)  a  Social 
Presidency,  which,  besides  serving 
for  the  administration  and  for 
assemblies,  may  be  at  the  same 
time  a  kind  of  school  for  technical 
conferences  on  art  and  education, 
and  also  a  place  for  ordinary  con¬ 
versation  and  amusement.  All  this 
under  the  vivifying  breath  of 
religion,  under  the  care  of  an 
ecclesiastic ;  and  materially  sup¬ 
ported  from  a  fund  contributed  by 
the  members,  and  by  others,  who 
aid  in  promoting  the  interests  of  all 
classes. 

“  This  does  not  appear  to  me 
impossible  :  it  concerns  a  transfor¬ 
mation  and  co-ordination  rather 
than  a  new  creation.  But  unless 
this  work  is  done,  we  are  convinced 
that  the  new  corporations  will  be 
shadows  without  a  body,\  or  at 
most — as  you  have  written  to  me — 
a  blaze  of  straw,  which  will  leave 
a  cloudy  darkness  after  it.” 

Note  5,  p.  26. — The  idea  of  social 
justice,  at  least  as  we  have  described 
it,  has  lately  entered  minds,  but  not 
all.  Antoine  tells  us  of  a  congress 
in  which  a  lawyer  said  that  the 
phrase  “  social  justice  ”  is  one  with¬ 
out  meaning.  We  ourselves  hap¬ 
pened  to  read  in  a  periodical  that 
social  justice  is  nothing  but  charity. 
We  do  not  agree  in  this  view. 
Charity  is  always  of  a  secondary  or 
supplementary  character.  Justice, 
even  social  justice,  is  always  the 
principal  bond  through  which  the 
sympathy  of  civil  society  is  to  be 
obtained. 

Note  6,  p.  37. — The  want  of 
employment  is  a  deplorable  fact, 
too  often  occurring  in  the  present 


state  of  society.  Catholics  who  have 
studied  the  matter,  propose  three 
remedies  : — (i.)  Labour  Bureaux. 
These  are  like  so  many  registry 
offices.  They  keep  an  account  of 
the  demand  and  supply  in  regard  to 
work,  and  endeavour  to  provide  for 
both,  (ii.)  Houses  for  Work.  Re¬ 
ceiving  public  and  private  aid,  they 
have  workshops,  in  which  competent 
and  unemployed  men  are  engaged, 
(iii.)  Boxes  for  the  Unemployed. 
These  give  an  allowance  in  money 
to  the  unemployed.  Those  who  are 
enrolled  pay  a  subscription.  Bene¬ 
factors,  and  sometimes  the  com¬ 
munity,  assist. 

This  is  a  point  that  ought  to  be 
a  special  study  with  local  working 
societies,  so  as  to  apply  to  the  evil 
that  remedy  which  is  found  most 
suitable  and  efficacious  for  it.  In 
some  places,  work  is  not  wanting, 
but  it  is  confined  to  two  or  three 
industries,  which  turn  to  other  dis¬ 
tricts  where  lower  wages  are  given, 
and  leave  a  part  of  the  local  work¬ 
people  unemployed.  In  such  cases 
a  co-operative  society  will  do  good, 
giving  autonomous  action.  As  in 
other  tasks  of  societies,  a  federation 
of  them  in  a  province  or  diocese 
will  also  be  useful.  The  reason  is 
always  the  same  :  union  is  strength. 

Note  7,  p.  45. — Social  indivi¬ 
dualism  incited  the  various  social 
elements  to  the  pursuit  of  greater 
wellbeing.  And,  as  a  consequence, 
the  stronger  made  little  account  of 
scruples  ;  they  trampled  on  the 
rights  of  the  weaker  elements. 
Those  who  naturally  had  a  right  to 
special  aid  from  society  found 
themselves  wronged,  degraded  by 
society.  Poor  labourers,  children, 
and  women  suffered  oppression  and 
the  loss  of  their  rights.  Catholics, 
intent  on  the  re-integration  of  every 
S  just  right,  could  not  forget  woman, 
whom  Jesus  Christ  had  raised  from 
pagan  abjection,  and  liberalism  had 
driven  back  to  a  slavery  that,  though 
masked,  was  not  less  painful  and 
unworthy  of  her,  a  creature  of  God. 
Hence  came  a  movement  in  favour 
of  woman,  a  movement  that,  like 
other  new  movements,  was  at  first 
opposed,  but  that  is  to-day  making 
glorious  progress.  To  this  resur¬ 
rection,  eminently  Christian,  is 


92 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 


given  the  name  of  Christian 
Feminism — not  a  very  beautiful 
name,  but  one  that  indicates  a 
most  beautiful  work.  This  move¬ 
ment  advances  daily  in  elaborating 
and  defining  the  points  of  its  pro¬ 
gramme.  Among  these  the  most 
important  are  the  rights  that 
woman  has  (i.)  to  be  equal  with 
man  in  regard  to  moral  laws,  so  that 
there  are  not  two  moralities — one 
for  man  and  another  for  woman,  as 
is  often  pretended  ;  (ii.)  to  be  free, 
even  against  the  will  of  her  husband, 
when  there  is  question  of  fulfilling 
her  duties  as  a  woman  and  a 
Christian  ;  and  (iii.)  to  be  specially 
protected  by  society  in  her  relations 
as  daughter,  wife,  and  mother. 
Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  condemn 
a  certain  interest  that  woman  takes 
in  the  good  ordering  of  public  affairs, 
in  the  proper  state  of  civil  society  ; 
for  it  is  no  hindrance  to  her  duties 
within  the  domestic  walls. 

We  repeat  that  there  is  a  pro¬ 
gramme,  and  it  is  developing  by 
degrees.  The  points  of  it  are  found 
under  the  accumulated  ruins  of 
liberalism,  as  among  the  ashes  of 
an  old  burnt  city  we  meet  with 
treasures  of  art. 


Note  8,  p.  51. — Although  in  other 
places  the  system  of  “  social 
clauses  ”  has  been  sooner  and  more 
generally  practised,  yet  in  Italy 
there  are  examples  of  it.  We  may 
refer  to  that  of  Turin,  which 
approved  of  the  motion  made  in  the 
order  of  the  day  by  the  Catholic 
councillor  Ricci,  saying :  “  The 

Council,  having  heard  the  declara¬ 
tions  of  the  syndic  and  the  com¬ 
mittee,  decides  that  in  contracts  of 
public  service  those  social  clauses 
should  be  placed  which  guard  the 
just  freedom  and  wellbeing  of  work¬ 
people,  guaranteeing  to  them 
specially  and  always  rest  on 
festivals,  a  fair  minimum  of  wages, 
and  a  fair  maximum  of  hours  for 
work.  Recourse  can  be  had  to 
mixed  commissions,  and  to  the 
suggestions  of  technically  competent 
persons,  if  there  should  be  any 
difficulty  in  settling  these  points.” 

An  identical  proposal,  made  by 
Alberto  Buffa,  was  approved  by  the 
Council  of  Alexandria  in  May,  1900. 


Note  9,  p.  51. — The  many  duties 
of  the  Commune  towards  work¬ 
people  are  exceedingly  well  shown 
in  the  work  of  the  lawyer  Invrea  : 
II  Comune  e  la  sua  Funzione  Sociale. 
For  the  right  management  of  Com¬ 
munes,  Catholics  still  rely  on  pro¬ 
fessional  representation  in  councils, 
on  the  referendum,  and  on  pro¬ 
gressive  imposts. 

Note  10,  p.  60. — At  the  Congress 
of  Social  Science,  Padua,  1896,  the 
following  resolution  was  adopted  : 
“  Considering  that  recourse  to  the 
electoral  body  for  the  more  impor¬ 
tant  acts  of  an  administrative 
economical  character  (new  imposts, 
loans,  alienations  or  diminutions  of 
patrimony,  &c.),  and  also  for  the 
more  important  acts  of  a  moral 
character  in  the  Communes,  while 
it  stimulates  a  sense  of  responsibility 
in  the  people,  and  corrects  various 
defects  in  the  representative  system 
.  .  .  becomes  a  guarantee  for  the 
right,  free,  and  prompt  performance 
of  social  functions  .  .  .  the 

Congress  wishes  that  until  it  is 
legally  admitted  with  deliberative 
effect,  the  suitability  of  its  applica¬ 
tion  in  a  consultative  form  should 
be  maintained.”  ( Atti ).  The  Con¬ 
gress  of  Turin  also  expresses  itself 
in  favour  of  the  Referendum ;  and 
the  memorial  presented  to  the 
government  by  desire  of  the  Con¬ 
gress  of  Fiesola  asks  for  the  same. 
It  is  to  be  understood,  however, 
that  all  these  remarks  refer  tb  the 
Communal  Referendum. 

Note  11,  p.  73- — “  It  may  very 
well  happen  that  a  tax  and  an 
impost  occur  in  the  same  payment. 
We  shall  find  an  example  in  some 
rules  of  registration.  When  a  docu¬ 
ment  is  registered  by  authority,  and 
thus  becomes  more  fitted  for  use  as 
a  title  or  proof,  the  State  renders  a 
service  to  him  in  whose  favour  the 
registration  is  made.  Now,  if  for 
such  service  a  very  high  remunera¬ 
tion  is  required,  this  high  remunera¬ 
tion  is  a  tax  only  for  a  small  part ; 
for  the  greater  part,  it  is  an  impost. 
It  is  exclusively  an  impost  if  the 
registration  brings  no  advantage 
that  cannot  be  obtained  in  some 
other  way,  or  if  it  is  made 


NOTES  TO  THE  FIRST  PART 


93 


only  because  prescribed  by  law.” 
(Pierson,  Problemi,  &c.,  p.  404.) 

Note  12,  p.  74. — “  Salt  has  no 
impost  in  England,  Belgium, 
Portugal,  B-oumania.  In  Russia 
it  is  taxed  at  8*  centimes  per  kilo¬ 
gramme,  at  15  in  Germany,  at  8 
in  Greece,  at  10  in  France.  The 
centimes  of  war,  scarcely  established, 
were  suppressed,  and  in  the  worst 
days  the  figure  never  rose  higher 
than  30  cefitimes.  Only  in  Italy 
has  the  impost  on  salt  risen  to  55 
centimes  per  kilogramme,  producing 
for  the  State  a  revenue  of  80,616,000 
lire,  or  an  average  of  3.02  per  head. 

“  Mantegazza  has  calculated  that 
7j  kilogrammes  of  salt  are  necessary 
for  each  individual.  Now  the 
majority  of  Italians  consume  only 
about  3  kilogrammes  on  an 
average.”  *  (Peopli,  Journal  des 
Economistes,  Paris,  Oct.,  1878, 
p.  151). 

Note  13,  p.  75. — “  We  know 
what  regulates  the  selling  value  of 
immovable  goods.  The  value  of  a 
farm  is  equal  to  the  capitalised 
amount  of  the  return  that  it  pro¬ 
duces.  If  the  return  is  1,000  florins 
and  the  rate  of  interest  is  4  per  cent., 
the  selling  value  will  be  25,000 
florins.  What  will  happen  if  a  farm 
that  has  a  letting  value  of  1,000 
florins  is  subjected  to  a  land  impost 
of  10  per  cent.  ?  The  selling  value 
of  that  farm  will  fall  to  22,500 
florins  :  the  owner  will  suffer  as  if 
2,500  florins  were  taken  out  of  his 
pocket.  The  introduction  or  the 
increase  of  a  real  impost  is  com¬ 
pared — and  with  perfect  truth — to 
a  partial  expropriation,  without  in¬ 
demnity.  Such  a  measure  is  always 


very  afflicting  for  the  owner  at  the 
time.”  (Pierson,  Problemi,  p.  413.) 

Note  14,  p.  79. — We  give  the 
name  of  State  to  civil  society  con¬ 
stituted  into  an  autonomous  body 
for  the  attainment  of  the  common 
good.  But  by  a  happy  abstraction 
we  also  give  this  name  to  the 
supreme  power,  which  is  the  chief 
part  of  society.  We  have  said  by 
a  happy  abstraction,  because  it  is 
power  that  gives  form  to  society  ; 
and  neatly  the  whole  life  of  society 
is  centred  therein.  It  is  like  the 
heart,  which  diffuses  vigour  through 
the  whole  social  body. 

To  understand  well  the  nature  of 
the  State,  taken  in  this  secondary 
sense,  is  a  thing  of  so  much  im¬ 
portance  that  the  formation  of  true 
and  just  ideas  regarding  social 
science  depends  on  it.  Now  this 
ought  not  to  be  difficult  for  anyone 
who  recalls  the  points  of  doctrine 
on  which  we  have  chiefly  dwelt. 
They  are  so  many  resting-places  on 
a  royal  road,  from  which  we  have 
clear  and  beautiful  views. 

We  studied  humanity  in  its 
origin.  We  noted  the  various  stages 
in  its  development,  caused  by  a 
primary  want  or  necessity,  that  of 
man’s  happiness.  The  desire  of 
happiness  is  a  sap  that  circulates 
in  hidden  channels  through  all  the 
branches  of  the  human  race.  It 
obliges  men  to  join  in  associations 
that  will  satisfy  such  a  want. 

From  man  we  passed  on  to  the 
family ;  from  the  family  to  the 
commune  ;  and  from  the  commune 
to  civil  society.  In  the  study  of 
civil  society  we  find  that  there  is 
one  element  above  all  essential  to 
it :  we  mean  the  State. 


*  This  would  seem  to  be  the  quantity  used  in  a  year.  The  kilogramme  is 
equal  to  a  little  more  than  two  pounds  avoirdupois. — Trans. 


SECOND  PART 

THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 


CHAPTER  I.  . 

MEANING  AND  OBJECT  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY. 

Section  I. — Utility,  Value,  and  Abundance  oe  Goods. 

We  cannot  imagine  the  life  of  man  on  this  earth  without  the 
existence  of  a  multitude  of  things  external  to  him — things  various 
in  quantity,  in  form,  in  the  use  that  he  makes  of  them — which 
serve  to  satisfy  his  wants  or  to  procure  him  enjoyments.  We 
are  convinced  of  these  facts  by  our  experience  of  human  life. 

It  is  not  merely  a  relation  of  use  that  the  life  of  man  has  with 
these  external  things.  No,  it  has  other  and  almost  continual 
relations  with  them,  concurring  to  their  production,  their  cir¬ 
culation,  their  distribution,  or  their  consumption.  Man  is 
naturally  inclined  to  occupy  himself  with  his  relations  in  regard 
to  external  things,  because  he  depends  upon  these  things  for  his 
preservation,  and  for  his  more  or  less  prosperous  existence.  To 
study,  to  regulate,  and  to  control  such  relations  that  they  may 
have  the  desired  effect  is  the  task  of  a  special  science,  which 
takes  the  name  of  Economy. 

If  Economy  confines  itself  to  study  and  give  laws  within  the 
limits  of  the  domestic  walls,  and  settles  the  administrative 
ordering  of  the  family,  it  is  called  Domestic  or  Private  Economy 
( Cossa ). 

If,  with  a  wider  horizon,  it  studies  the  nature,  the  production, 
the  circulation,  the  distribution  of  things,  calling  in  all  society, 
not  only  as  a  point  of  departure,  that  is,  as  an  agent  of  pro¬ 
duction,  but  also  as  a  point  of  arrival,  that  is,  as  a  term  in  whose 
favour  consumption  takes  place,  it  is  called  Social  or  Political 
Economy. 

With  regard  to  the  end  of  Political  Economy,  Perin  speaks 
thus  : — “  The  scope  that  economic  science  sets  before  it  is  one 
eminently  practical.  It  seeks  the  method  of  securing  for  men 
who  live  in  society  the  greatest  possible  wellbeing,  of  procuring 
for  them  the  greatest  possible  riches,  in  such  a  manner  that  these 
riches  may  serve  them  for  the  attainment  of  their  last  end,  which 
stands  highest  in  the  moral  order.”  ( Premiers  Princi'pes,  &c., 
p.  3.) 

How,  therefore,  shall  we  define  Political  Economy  ?  Without 


96 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


any  pretensions  to  suppose  that  there  is  only  one  definition, 
we  shall  say  that  it  is  a  science  which  studies  wealth  in  its  relations 
with  civil  society.  Boccardo  defines  it  as  a  science  that  studies 
the  laws  of  the  production,  distribution,  and  consumption  of 
wealth.  ( Dizionario  d'Econ.  Pol.,  ii.,  89.)  Cossa  says  more  briefly 
that  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  social  order  of  wealth.  ( Primi 
Elementi.) 

But  what  is  meant  by  wealth  ?  The  common  idea  of  wealth 
is  so  simple  that  it  scarcely  ever  happens  to  be  defined.  As  for 
the  idea  that  economists  have  of  it,  it  is  so  various  and  unprecise 
that  it  can  scarcely  be  understood.  Before  entering  on  this 
thorny  ground,  which  we  would  willingly  avoid  for  our  own 
sake  and  that  of  the  reader,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  refer 
to  some  other  ideas  of  much  importance. 

Goods. — The  things  of  which  man  makes  use  in  order  to 
preserve  his  life  or  to  procure  some  satisfaction  for  himself,  have 
the  nature  of  good.  They  are,  therefore,  justly  called  goods. 

Utility. — Goods  cannot  be  conceived  otherwise  than  as  sub¬ 
stances  that  have  an  aptitude  for  giving  man  some  satisfaction  : 
this  aptitude  is  called  utility.  The  utility  of  things,  with  regard 
to  man,  appears  in  a  two-fold  way.  The  first  is  that  of  being 
able  to  become  useful,  certain  conditions  being  verified.  The 
second  is  that  of  being  useful,  those  conditions  already  existing, 
which  may  be  reduced  to  a  knowledge  of  the  properties  of  the 
object,  and  to  circumstances  of  time  and  place  that  create  in  man 
a  need,  or  only  a  capacity,  for  using  them  with  satisfaction. 

Through  want  of  some  of  these  conditions  it  happens  that 
some  things  are  called  useless,  which,  if  properly  known  or  placed 
in  other  circumstances,  would  be  found  most  useful,  and  even 
necessary. 

Man,  composed  of  matter  and  spirit,  has  corporal  and  spiritual 
wants,  and  is  capable  of  various  satisfactions.  For  his  corporal 
nature  all  those  goods  are  useful,  which,  being  material,  are  in 
some  degree  adapted  to  his  physical  constitution,  or  to  the  con¬ 
ditions  in  which  he  lives.  From  the  elements  that  are  absolutely 
necessary  for  life  to  the  requirements  of  the  most  pompous 
luxury,  there  is  a  countless  number  of  material  goods  that  modify 
the  sense  of  physical  wellbeing  in  man. 

As  regards  the  spiritual  part  of  man,  all  those  things  are  useful 
which,  procured,  give  an  intellectual  satisfaction  to  the  soul. 
Economy  holds  account  even  of  these,  both  because  the  satisfac¬ 
tion  of  the  mind  and  heart  often  proceeds  from  a  material  object, 
and  because  man  is  not  a  mere  vegetable  or  animal,  but  a  creature 
that  thinks,  reasons,  grows  perfect,  advances  in  civilisation. 

Another  distinction.  “  Among  the  utilities  of  which  man 
avails  himself  some  are  furnished  spontaneously,  gratuitously  by 
nature,  without  any  appreciable  effort  on  his  part ;  others,  and 
by  far  the  greater  number,  he  cannot  obtain  without  more  or 
less  trouble,  if  not  with  the  sweat  of  his  brow.  Air,  light,  water 


UTILITY,  VALUE,  AND  ABUNDANCE  OP  GOODS  97 


are  utilities  of  the  former  kind,  or  gratuitous.  The  properties 
that  human  labour  confers  on  matter,  such  as  those  of  fertility 
in  soil,  buildings  in  stone,  machines  in  iron,  and  weaving  in  wool, 
are  utilities  of  the  second  kind,  or  onerous.”  (Boccardo,  Diz.  iv., 
545.)  The  gratuitous  utilities  are  also  called  natural ;  the 
onerous,  artificial. 

It  is  proper  to  make  a  third  distinction  of  goods.  Some  are 
offered  by  nature  in  such  abundance  that  there  is  enough,  and 
more  than  enough,  for  all,  as  happens  with  air  and  light.  There 
is  no  reason,  therefore,  in  normal  cases,  for  appropriating  them, 
and  hence  they  are  said  to  be  inappropriate.  Others,  instead, 
though  offered  by  nature,  are  limited  in  quantity  ;  for  example, 
lands  and  mines.  These  are  called  appropriable. 

Value. — “  This  is  of  great  value  to  me  ”  is  the  expression  of 
a  judgment  that  shows  the  utility  of  something  for  him  who 
wishes  to  make  use  of  it.  Thus  a  sick  man  sometimes  values 
a  breath  of  fresh  air  or  a  ray  of  sunshine.  Here  the  word  value 
is  identified  with  that  of  utility.  It  means  the  value  of  use,  an 
expression  that  some  writers  would  banish  from  economic 
treatises,  saying  that  the  word  utility  suffices.  Others  wish  it 
to  be  retained,  as  that  which  shows  better  how  the  mind 
appreciates  the  utility  of  something.  Generally  speaking,  it  is 
certain  that  value  is  often  a  comparative  idea.  The  utility  of 
one  thing  is  compared  with  that  of  another,  and  a  conclusion  is 
drawn  as  to  their  equality  or  inequality.  In  the  former  case 
it  is  said  that  one  thing  is  value  for  another,  that  they  are  corn- 
mutable  or  exchangeable  ;  in  the  latter,  it  is  not  so. 

Barter,  accordingly,  is  the  exchange  of  two  equal  values  : 
each  takes  the  place  of  the  other  in  possession.  The  reason  for 
exchange  is  altogether  subjective  :  he  who  parts  with  value 
does  so  because  he  considers  that  the  value  which  he  receives 
will  be  more  useful  to  him. 

It  is  clear  that  the  utility  of  things,  or  their  value  of  use,  is 
the  foundation  of  their  value  of  exchange.  A  thing  that  is  not 
useful  is  not  desired,  and  no  one  will  give  anything  to  have  it. 
Utility  alone,  however,  does  not  constitute  value.  What  more 
useful  than  air  and  water  ?  Yet  what  value  of  exchange  have 
they,  in  normal  circumstances  ?  Another  element  is  needed  to 
complete  the  idea  of  value,  and  it  is  the  difficulty  of  acquiring 
the  thing  that  is  useful.  The  first  element  (utility)  is  intrinsic 
and  fundamental.  The  second  (difficulty)  is  extrinsic  and  acci¬ 
dental,  but  it  is  also  necessary  and  determinative. 

Some  authors  place  the  foundation  of  value  in  the  cost  of  a 
commodity.  By  cost  are  understood  the  expenses,  labours, 
risks,  sacrifices,  incurred  to  bring  a  commodity  to  an  exchange¬ 
able  state.  It  does  not  follow  that  artificial  utilities  alone  would 
have  a  value,  and  natural  ones  none,  because  they  cost  nothing. 
If  this  may  have  had  some  little  truth  in  primitive  society,  it 
cannot  well  be  maintained  at  the  present  day.  We,  all  the 

G 


98  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


world,  value  a  commodity  according  to  the  service  that  it  renders 
us  by  its  utility,  not  according  to  what  its  production  cost. 

Wealth. — According  to  Adam  Smith,  who  is  regarded  as  the 
father  of  political  economy,  wealth  is  a  synonym  for  value,  the 
value  of  exchange.  He  means  that  only  those  things  which 
have  the  capacity  of  being  exchanged  for  other  useful  things 
are  wealth.  Say  and  Kicardo  held  the  same  opinion.  Others, 
as  Boccardo,  make  wealth  a  synonym  for  utility  :  “  Wealth  is 
all  that  which  serves  to  satisfy  human  wants”  ( Biz .,  iv.,  293). 
Liberatore  thinks  that  appropriable  goods  alone  deserve  the 
name  of  wealth,  and  only  when  they  are  found  in  considerable 
quantity. 

Section  II. — Laws  of  Value. 

We  must  first  make  a  distinction  between  normal  and  current 
value.  The  normal  value  is  that  which  is  intrinsic  to  an  article 
of  merchandise,  comes  to  it  from  nature,  from  the  qualities  in  it, 
and  not  from  the  subjectivities  of  the  moment,  either  on  the 
part  of  him  who  gives  or  of  him  who  receives.  The  current 
value  is  that  which  follows  the  changes  of  the  market.  The 
formulae  that  express  the  relations  of  the  different  kinds  of  value 
with  the  conditions  that  accompany  merchandise  are  called  laws 
of  value.  Let  us  mention  some  of  them  : — 

1.  “  The  value  of  use,  that  is,  the  appreciation  of  the  utility 
of  a  thing,  is  proportional  to  the  nature,  gravity,  or  urgency  of 
the  want  that  the  commodity  can  satisfy,  and  to  the  subjective 
dispositions  of  him  who  wishes  to  use  it.”  We  know  that  in  man 
there  are  wants  which  absolutelv  must  be  satisfied  ;  and  others 
which,  being  satisfied,  serve  only  to  procure  a  greater  or  less 
degree  of  wellbeing.  As  regards  the  former,  necessity  pre¬ 
dominates,  and  rules  the  subjective  judgment ;  as  regards  the 
latter,  the  appreciation  is  arbitrary.  Thus  it  happens  that  a 
thing  may  have  value  for  some,  while  it  has  no  value  for  others. 
Hence  justness  of  ideas,  education,  moral  sentiments,  &c.,  can 
have  an  influence  on  the  appreciation  of  things,  and  indirectly 
on  the  changes  of  the  market. 

2.  “  The  current  value  of  goods  stands  in  a  simple  ratio  to  the 
demand  and  in  an  inverse  ratio  to  the  supply.”  The  demand  and 
the  supply  are  two  powers  that  tell  on  price  in  the  market.  A 
great  demand  disposes  the  purchaser  to  make  sacrifices  in  order 
to  have  wares  ;  a  great  supply  dispenses  him  from  doing  so. 

To  find  the  laws  of  normal  value,  we  must  not  forget  the  dis¬ 
tinction  made  between  natural  and  artificial  goods.  Looking  at 
artificial  goods,  we  observe  that  some  of  them  are  produced  in  an 
indefinite  quantity ;  others  are  of  limited  production,  as,  for 
example,  Marsala  wine.  The  law  follows  : — 

3.  “  The  normal  value  of  artificial  goods  of  indefinite  pro¬ 
duction  is  determined  by  their  cost,  and  tends  to  keep  with  it.” 


THEORY  OF  KARL  MARX  ON  VALUE 


99 


This  law  is  easily  shown  to  be  true.  The  tailor  who  makes  a  coat 
consumes  values  or  invests  them  in  the  coat.  It  is  only  natural 
that  an  equation  should  be  made  between  the  normal  value  of 
the  coat  and  the  amount  of  values  consumed,  that  is  to  say,  the 
cost.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  I  ask  a  glass  of  water  from  a  good 
housewife,  who  has  just  drawn  it  fresh  from  the  well,  and  she 
wishes  to  make  me  pay,  not  on  account  of  any  trouble  that  she 
had  in  bringing  it,  but  on  account  of  the  satisfaction  that  it 
gives  me,  I  refuse,  and  I  go  to  the  well  myself.  In  short,  utility 
given  is  exchanged  or  sold  ;  not  so  with  that  which  is  found 
gratis. 

The  play  between  demand  and  supply,  to  which  merchandise 
is  subject  in  exchange,  proves  the  second  part  of  the  law  stated. 
In  point  of  fact,  if  it  happens  that  by  an  increased  number  of 
consumers  the  value  of  merchandise  is  raised  above  cost,  the 
producers  produce  a  greater  quantity  of  it,  they  facilitate  the 
acquisition  of  it  by  consumers,  and  the  price  is  readjusted. 
Similarly,  if  the  value  falls  below  cost,  the  producers  abstain 
from  production  until  an  equality  is  re-established. 

It  may  happen  that  various  wares  of  the  same  kind  and  the 
same  use  cost  different  sums.  What  will  then  be  the  expression 
of  the  normal  value  ?  The  lowest,  the  middle,  or  the  highest  ? 
We  distinguish.  If  the  production  at  the  lowest  cost  can  be  so 
abundant  as  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  market,  the  lowest 
cost  will  be  an  index  of  the  normal  value.  But  if  it  is  insufficient, 
the  higher  cost  will  then  determine  the  normal  value.  The 
producer  at  the  lowest  cost  is  then  benefited  by  the  necessity  in 
which  the  market  is  placed  of  having  recourse  to  producers  at  a 
higher  cost. 

As  for  other  kinds  of  goods,  the  production  of  which  is  neces¬ 
sarily  limited,  the  following  law  will  apply  : — 

4.  “  The  normal  value  of  artificial  goods  of  limited  increase 
can  exceed  the  cost  of  production,  which  represents  the  lowest 
value.”  Let  us  suppose  a  bottle  of  true  Marsala  :  above  what 
it  cost,  the  demand  and  the  supply  may  have  a  contest,  and 
establish  a  special  value. 

Even  for  natural  goods  there  is  need  of  a  distinction.  There 
are  some  that  cannot  be  imitated  by  art,  nor  can  satisfactory 
artificial  substitutes  be  found  for  them.  These  have  no  cost ; 
they  have,  therefore,  only  a  current  value.  Other  natural  goods 
can  be  imitated  by  skill,  or  at  least  can  be  replaced  by  artificial 
substitutes  in  the  service  that  they  render  to  man.  The  normal 
value  of  such  goods  will  be  regulated  by  the  cost  of  producing  those 
which  are  substituted  for  them. 

Section  III  — The  Theory  of  Karl  Marx  on  Value. 

When  we  said  that  the  normal  value  of  artificial  goods  tends  to 
keep  near  the  cost,  we  were  very  far  from  asserting  that,  among 


100  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


the  expenses  of  cost,  the  labour  of  man  ought  not  to  be  counted. 
To  omit  it  would  be  injustice.  The  product  costs  not  only  an 
outlay  of  capital  employed  on  it,  but  also  an  outlay  of  man’s 
labour,  which  labour  equals  the  expenses  that  are  necessary  to 
restore  to  him  his  lost  strength. 

Marx,  not  content  with  assigning  to  labour  a  fair  place  among 
the  expenses  of  cost,  extends  it  so  far  as  to  absorb  all  other 
expenses,  and,  by  making  the  cost  equal  to  the  labour,  gives 
us  his  theory  of  value  thus  : — Value  is  equal  to  the  labour  spent  in 
the  production  of  merchandise.  In  other  words,  value  is  nothing 
but  labour  embodied,  crystallised  :  an  article  of  merchandise 
is  worth  as  much  as  the  labour  contained  in  it. 

To  a  first  objection  against  this  theory,  that  one  man  is  slow 
and  another  quick  at  labour,  Marx  replies  that  he  takes  social 
labour  as  the  unit  of  comparison,  that  is,  the  amount  of  labour 
that,  making  account  of  social  conditions,  is  normally  necessary 
for  the  production  of  anything. 

This  miserable  theory,  abandoned  to-day  even  by  the  disciples 
of  Marx,  has  too  many  defects  to  deserve  the  name  of  scientific. 
We,  who  have  studied  in  facts  the  idea  of  value,  know  what  men 
mean  when  they  say,  This  is  worth  that.  It  is  true  that  Marx 
would  not  at  all  have  maintained  with  so  much  warmth  his  theory 
on  value  if  it  had  not  served  him  as  a  hook  on  which  to  hang 
another  unfortunate  theory  regarding  the  origin  of  capital.  But 
of  this  elsewhere. 


Section  IV. — A  Moral  Foundation. 

The  work  of  making  economy  a  science  or  an  art  entirely 
autonomous,  developing  it  without  any  moral  idea  or  principle, 
finds  too  many  supporters,  even  among  those  who  have  a  hundred 
eyes  to  shed  tears  over  the  economic  contests  of  our  day,  and 
not  one  to  see  the  logical  consequences  of  a  material  economy 
that  makes  no  account  of  morals. 

We  assert  that  political  economy  ought  to  be  subject  to  the 
laws  of  morals,  not  only  because  human  acts  are  moral  acts, 
but  because  it  should  aid  in  carrying  out  the  designs  of  Providence. 

We  know  that  economic  goods  have  one  special  reason  for  their 
existence,  which  is  the  use  that  man  makes  of  them  for  the  attain¬ 
ment  of  his  last  end.  We  say  man  in  general,  that  is  all  mankind, 
all  the  human  race.  Be  it  that  particular  individuals,  certain 
conditions  being  placed,  have  a  right  to  the  use  of  these  goods ; 
still  the  goods  have  this  destination,  to  serve  all  the  human  race. 
And  that  will  be  a  just  economic  ordering  of  society  in  which 
all  mankind  will  be  secured  in  the  use  of  the  goods  indispensable 
for  life.  It  will  be  just,  because  the  scope  intended  by  nature 
in  regard  to  such  goods  will  be  attained. 

“  In  every  well-ordered  society,”  says  the  Pope,  “  there  ought 


POVERTY  AND  PAUPERISM 


101 


to  be  a  sufficient  supply  of  material  goods,  the  use  of  which  is 
necessary  for  the  practice  of  virtue  ”  ( Rerum  novarum).  But 
virtue  is  a  duty  of  all  mankind.  Therefore,  there  ought  to  be  an 
abundance  of  goods  for  all  mankind  in  a  well-ordered  society. 

Thus  does  God  wish  society  to  be  constituted.  To  help  in 
making  it  such  as  He  wishes  is  an  act  of  good  morals. 

Justly,  therefore,  does  G.  B.  Say  conclude  :  “  The  study  of 

political  economy  and  the  study  of  morality  afford  each  other  a 
mutual  help,  without  any  confusion.” 


Section  V. — Poverty  and  Pauperism. 

Goods  were  created  for  man,  and  are  continually  produced. 
The  position  of  man  with  regard  to  them,  by  which  he  has  more 
or  less  a  right  to  use  them,  takes  special  names,  which  we  ought 
to  remember.  A  man  is  rich,  if  he  is  able  to  satisfy  his  various 
desires.  It  is  clear  that  there  is  no  state  of  absolute  riches  here 
below,  for  the  great  reason  that  this  world  was  not  made  by 
nature  to  satisfy  all  human  wishes.  Man  will  always  be  in  a 
state  of  insufficiency  with  regard  to  his  desires. 

He  who  wants  anything  is  poor,  and  is  said  by  all  to  be  so. 
Therefore,  all  mankind  are  and  always  will  be  poor.  To  seek 
perfect  riches  on  earth  is  to  seek  what  cannot  be  found. 

This  poverty,  however,  has  innumerable  degrees.  It  is 
commonly  called  wealth  in  him  who  has  abundance  of  goods  to 
satisfy  not  only  his  wants,  but  his  desires  of  greater  wellbeing. 
It  takes  the  name  of  ease  or  sufficiency  in  him  who  possesses  it 
without  any  great  difficulty  or  fatigue  for  himself  or  those  belong¬ 
ing  to  him.  It  bears  the  name  of  poverty  in  him  who  wants 
what  is  necessary  for  him,  according  to  his  condition.  It  is  called 
misery,  if  any  one  wants  what  is  indispensable  for  life.  “  Pauperism 
is  the  state  of  a  number  of  individuals  who  are  permanently  in 
want  of  what  is  absolutely  necessary  for  life.”  (Antoine,  Corso,  &c., 

p.  608.) 

It  is  now  easy  to  understand — 

1.  That  the  Author  of  humanity  having  appointed  that  the 
distribution  of  goods  should  be  made  by  property  and  labour, 
there  will  always  be  poor  people  in  the  world.  There  are  always 
some  who,  through  inability  or  sloth,  do  not  work,  and  some  who, 
through  punishment  or  misfortune,  are  in  want  of  the  necessaries 
of  life,  according  to  their  condition.  These  are  poor,  and  to  be 
helped  by  charity. 

2.  That,  however  perfect  society  may  be,  it  will  never  succeed 
in  banishing  poverty  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  because  the 
existence  of  poor  people  is  an  effect  of  the  state  in  which  humanity 
finds  itself.  The  Pope  says  : — “  Let  it  be  laid  down  as  a  principle 
that  we  ought  to  bear  with  the  condition  of  humanity.  To  take 
all  social  inequalities  from  the  world  would  be  impossible.  The 


102  THE  ELEMENTS  OE  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


Socialists  indeed  try  to  do  it,  but  all  such  attempts  against  the 
nature  of  things  are  vain.” 

3.  That  there  is  a  poverty  which  ought  to  be  found  in  all, 
and  which  consists  in  giving,  not  only  theoretically,  but  practically, 
a  just  appreciation  to  the  things  of  this  earth — regarding  them 
as  means  bestowed  on  man  for  the  attainment  of  his  last  end. 
Here  the  words  of  the  Gospel  apply  :  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit. 

4.  That  a  state  of  misery  is  not  one  of  the  conditions  to  which 
nature  has  condemned  a  portion  of  mankind,  but  only  a  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  conditions  in  which  the  human  race  finds  itself. 
Misery  is  an  exception  :  it  is  not  the  will  of  God,  but  is  permitted. 

5.  That  poverty  is  a  consequence,  not  necessary,  but  eventual 
and  explicable  from  the  vitiated  nature  of  man.  Pauperism  is 
an  effect  of  a  disordered  and  unjust  social  state. 

6.  That,  therefore,  that  social  condition  which  produces  the 
state  of  poverty  called  pauperism  is  vicious  and  unnatural. 

Pauperism  differs  from  poverty  in  two  chief  points,  (i.)  In 
the  cause  :  poverty  comes  from  misfortune,  unforseen  changes, 
idleness,  ingratitude,  &c.  ;  pauperism  follows  social  conditions 
with  regard  to  labour  and  production,  (ii.)  In  the  effect  : 
poverty  afflicts  this  or  that  individual ;  pauperism  strikes  a  large 
number  of  individuals,  and  makes  a  class  of  the  miserable. 

There  are  other  differences  depending  on  these  two.  Thus, 
against  poverty  a  man  can  often  struggle  ;  against  pauperism, 
never.  Poverty  is  very  much  the  same  in  extent  at  all  times  ; 
pauperism  spreads  more  or  less  according  to  social  conditions. 
Poverty  may  be  fruitful  in  good  :  it  is  often  joined  with  virtue 
and  intelligence.  Pauperism  is  nearly  always  accompanied  with 
desperation  and  crime.  It  is  absurd  to  expect  that  poverty  can 
be  made  to  disappear  altogether  from  the  world  :  Our  Lord  says, 
the  poor  you  have  always  with  you.  Pauperism  ought  to  cease  : 
the  will  of  God  is  that  it  should  cease. 

The  condition  of  society  at  the  present  day  is  such  that 
pauperism,  far  from  diminishing,  is  increasing  more  and  more. 
Unbridled  competition,  which  leaves  the  weak  in  the  power  of  the 
strong — the  tax  system,  which  weighs  most  where  it  should 
weigh  least — the  unprotected  state  of  labour,  and,  chiefly,  the 
want  of  conscience  with  which  mutual  relations  are  observed, 
are  all  so  many  causes  that  nourish  pauperism. 


Section  VI. — The  Factors  in  a  Eight  Ordering  of  Society. 

We  place  here  an  important  question,  the  solution  of  which 
separates  us  from  liberal  sociologists.  By  whose  aid  ought  a 
right  social  ordering  to  be  effected  ;  and,  in  a  special  manner, 
ought  the  State  to  interfere  with  its  heavy  hand  in  the  production, 
distribution,  &c.,  of  the  national  riches  ? 

Liberalism  answers  thus  : — “  Individual  activity  ought  to  be 


FACTORS  IN  A  RIGHT  ORDERING  OF  SOCIETY  103 


the  only  factor  in  regard  to  the  economic  position  of  the  citizens. 
The  work  of  individuals,  who  oppose  and  rival  one  another  in  the 
market  with  a  view  to  their  private  wellbeing,  necessarily  creates 
a  condition  of  things  that  is  beneficial  for  all  the  citizens.  There 
is  a  necessary  connection  between  individual  and  general  pros¬ 
perity  :  the  former  being  procured,  the  latter  follows.  The 
State  ?  Why  should  the  State  interfere  ?  It  fulfils  its  office 
by  being  the  guardian  of  individual  rights.” 

In  these  last  words,  which  show  us  the  erroneous  idea  that 
liberalism  has  of  the  State,  we  find  the  principle  that  gives  rise 
to  economic  liberalism,  or  the  system  of  free  competition,  accord¬ 
ing  to  which  it  is  said  that  political  economy  ought  to  be  governed. 

We  might  a  priori  demonstrate  how  such  a  theory  conflicts 
with  the  organic  idea  of  society,  with  the  task  that  ought  to  be 
a  special  one  of  the  State,  and  with  the  most  elementary  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  nature  of  man. 

We  cannot  permit  that  anyone  should  call  us  tyrants,  or  enemies 
of  individual  liberty,  because  we  refute  the  assertions  of  socialists. 
We  are  ready  to  admit  the  advantages  of  free  competition,  and 
to  defend  it  in  that  just  measure  which  the  order  of  things 
requires.  But  from  the  fact  that  it  is  attended  with  some  benefits, 
there  is  ground  to  conclude,  by  a  general  assertion,  that  every 
social  economic  good  is  to  be  traced  to  free  competition,  this  we 
cannot  admit — just  as,  while  we  recognise  the  benefits  of  rain, 
we  cannot  admit  that  rain  alone  will  help  the  fields. 

The  liberalists  have  written  many  pages  to  prove  the  advantages 
of  free  competition  in  all  the  vicissitudes  through  which  the 
markets  pass.  But  many  who  can  argue  marvellously  on 
economic  laws  do  not  take  into  account  that  the  application  of 
those  laws  is  entrusted  to  the  free  activity  of  man,  and  that  this 
too  often  is  not  cold  or  dumb  like  an  economic  law,  but  is  subject 
to  the  continual  breath  of  human  passions,  which  can  turn  it 
out  of  its  natural  course. 

The  weak  elements  have  precious  interests  which  in  the  fluctua¬ 
tions  of  free  competition  can  thus  be  lost — all  for  the  advantage 
of  the  insatiable  selfishness  of  the  strong. 

But  the  erroneousness  of  economic  liberalism  is  much  better 
shown  by  its  disastrous  effects  than  by  subtle  disquisitions  ; 
because,  with  misfortune  for  all,  liberalism  has  reduced  its  prin¬ 
ciples  to  practice.  Capitalism,  pauperism,  the  isolation  of  the  work¬ 
man,  the  idleness  of  multitudes,  are  the  sad  consequences  of  liberal 
individualism.  Alarmed  thereby,  some  of  the  most  earnest 
supporters  of  liberalism  invoke  here  and  there  the  intervention 
of  the  State. 

It  is  a  fact  well  known  and  felt  at  the  present  day  that  the 
actual  state  of  society,  which  is  a  fruit  of.  liberalism,  cannot 
be  maintained.  It  ought  to  be  changed.1  Hence  arise  two  classes 
of  men : — 

1.  Socialists,  who  refer  all  the  disastrous  effects  occasioned  by 


104  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


economic  liberalism  to  tbe  existence  of  private  property,  and 
therefore  wish  to  see  it  abolished,  communism  being  sub¬ 
stituted  in  its  place. 

2.  Social  Christians,  who  wish  that  a  just  economic  ordering 
of  society  should  be  produced  by  three  factors,  (i.)  Private 
Activity.  Those  who  rank  as  masters  or  operatives  in  the 
economic  world  ought  to  govern  their  mutual  relations  according 
to  justice,  and  to  be  guided  by  the  light  of  a  right  social 
conscience.  Leo  XIII.  therefore  calls  all  to  labour  for  the  solution 
of  the  social  question,  which  is  in  great  part  an  economic  one. 
(ii.)  The  Church.  “Nor  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  Church 
is  so  entirely  devoted  to  the  care  of  souls  that  she  forgets  what 
pertains  to  a  mortal  and  earthly  life.  She  wishes  and  strives 
most  earnestly  that  the  proletariat  may  emerge  from  their  miser¬ 
able  state  and  attain  to  a  better  condition.  And  herein  she 
gives  no  small  aid  by  calling  and  training  men  to  virtue.  For 
Christian  morals,  when  they  are  preserved  truly  such,  contribute 
by  themselves  to  worldly  prosperity.  .  .  .  The  Church  concurs 
directly  to  the  welfare  of  the  proletariat  by  creating  and  promoting 
whatever  can  contribute  to  their  relief.  Nay,  in  conferring 
benefits  of  this  kind,  she  so  signalises  herself  that  she  elicits  the 
praise  even  of  her  enemies.”  (Rerum  novarum.)  (iii.)  The  State. 
We  refer  elsewhere  to  the  duty  of  the  State  with  regard  to  the 
assistance  of  private  activity  and  the  protection  of  the  weak. 
Rulers  ought  in  the  first  place  to  concur  to  the  settlement  of  the 
social  question  “  with  all  the  power  of  laws  and  institutions, 
administering  the  affairs  of  the  State  in  such  a  manner  that  the 
natural  result  may  be  public  and  private  prosperity.”  ( Rerum 
novarum .) 


Themes. — Political  Economy  is  both  a  science  and  an  art — Can  a  nation 

«/ 

that  has  many  great  waterfalls  be  called  rich  ? — Rossi  has  asserted  that 
value  is  “  an  expression  of  the  relation  that  exists  between  human  wants 
and  things  in  general”  :  this  definition  is  to  be  rejected — The  Christian  idea 
of  riches — It  is  only  in  accordance  with  the  Christian  idea  that  riches  have 
a  social  function — Man  can  honestly  propose  to  himself  to  arrive  at  his 
greatest  wellbeing  in  this  world  on  condition  (i.)  of  keeping  his  activity 
submissive  to  moral  laws,  and  (ii.)  of  seeking  his  advancement  through 
labour — Smith  says  that  the  human  race  is  a  great  commercial  society,  and 
every  man  a  trafficker — It  has  been  asserted  that  value  is  not  in  proportion 
to  the  intrinsic  utility  of  things,  but  rather  to  the  service  rendered  by  the 
producer.  (See  Boccardo,  Econ.  Pol.  I.  23.) 

If  Christian  resignation  is  a  duty,  when  is  it  a  duty  ?  and  is  it  a  duty  in 
the  present  state  of  the  poor  ? — An  economic  equality  of  all  mankind  is 
not  only  impossible,  and,  if  attempted,  could  not  last,  but  it  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  social  condition  of  man — The  wellbeing  of  man  is  to  be  expected 
only  in  part  from  economic  goods — What  the  Church  has  done  for  the  well¬ 
being  of  peoples — The  abandonment  of  Christian  principles — above,  of 
justice  and  charity  towards  the  poor,  and  below,  of  mutual  solidarity — 
iB  the  cause  of  present  social  disorders. 


THE  PRODUCTIVE  PROCESS 


105 


CHAPTER  II. 

PRODUCTION  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  GOODS^ 

[As  Brants  has  done,  we  here  treat  of  two  subjects  together,  and  this 
because  we  believe  that  it  is  more  natural  to  do  so,  and  that  the  reader 
will  thus  more  easily  perceive  the  connection  between  producer  and  product. 
Let  us  explain.  When  studying  production,  we  see  the  nature  of  a  product, 
its  causes  appear  distinctly  to  us,  and  we  weigh  the  degrees  of  causality. 
If  immediately  we  proceed  to  distribution,  the  reader  does  not  forget  any 
of  the  elementary  ideas  that  ought  to  guide  us  to  an  equal  distribution,  and 
by  one  act  of  the  mind  he  connects,  as  is  ^natural,  the  production  and 
the  distribution  of  goods.  We  hope  that  we  are  not  mistaken.] 

Section  I. — The  Productive  Process. 

Man  avails  himself  of  the  goods  of  this  world.  He  gathers  them 
to  him,  applies  them  to  his  uses,  and  by  them,  if  we  may  so  speak, 
fills  up  the  voids  within  him,  which  are  called  wants. 

One  thing  is  required,  and  it  is  that  these  goods  should  have 
a  relation  to  the  wants  of  man,  so  that  they  may  satisfy  him. 
They  are  then  immediately  useful,  because  this  alone  is  required 
that  he  may  apply  them  to  himself  or  may  not  abstain  from 
their  application. 

Some  goods  are  placed  by  nature  in  a  state  of  immediate  utility  ; 
for  example,  air  and  light.  Others  have  need  of  being 
elaborated — brought  to  such  a  state  of  fitness  that  they  may  be 
immediately  useful  to  man.  This  can  and  should  be  the  work 
of  man  himself.  Immediate  utility  is  the  whole  reason  for 
appreciating  such  goods.  In  a  state  of  mere  potential  utility, 
man  could  not  appreciate  them  ;  they  would  be  for  him  as  if 
they  did  not  exist.  Hence  the  bringing  of  a  thing  from  a  state 
of  potential  utility  to  a  state  of  actual  or  immediate  utility  is 
justly  called  production. 

It  also  happens  that  a  thing,  from  a  state  of  immediate  utility 
with  regard  to  one  want,  may  pass  to  a  like  state  with  regard  to 
another.  This  is  also  called  production,  because  it  is  always  true 
that  the  thing  has,  under  the  hands  of  man,  gone  through  a  process 
by  which  it  has  acquired  a  utility  that  was  not  in  it  before.  And 
production  is  precisely  that  operation  by  which  new  utilities  are 
created. 

“  A  grave  error  was  committed  by  the  Physiocrats*  and  is 
committed  every  day  by  the  multitude,  supposing  that  pro¬ 
duction  consists  in  bringing  into  existence  things  that  did  not 
exist  before  :  an  error  from  which  arose  the  famous  theory  of  some 
French  economists,  who  held  that  agriculture  alone  among 
industries  deserves  the  title  of  productive,  as  that  which  alone 

*  The  leader  of  the  Physiocrats  was  a  Frenchman,  Francis  Quesney 
(1694-1774).  He  regarded  land  as  the  only  source  of  wealth,  taking  no 
account  of  labour  or  capital. — Trans, 


106  THE  ELEMENTS  OE  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


creates  new  matters — adds  new  things  to  those  from  which  man 
derives  advantage. 

“  Whatever  may  be  the  kind  of  industry  in  which  human 
labour  is  excercised,  it  never  produces  things,  but  utilities.  The 
labour  of  all  men  united  could  not  succeed  in  forming  the  smallest 
particle  of  matter,  as  it  could  not  succeed  in  destroying  or 
annihilating  the  least  atom.  To  weave  a  piece  of  cloth  is  nothing 
but  to  arrange  threads  of  wool  in  a  peculiar  manner,  more  suited 
to  the  use  for  which  they  are  intended.  To  make  a  field  of  wheat 
or  a  plantation  of  trees  grow  is  nothing  but  to  place  a  certain 
matter,  called  seed,  in  such  conditions  that  it  can  assimilate  to 
itself  the  elements  of  other  matters,  drawn  from  air,  earth,  and 
water,  and  thus  form  a  new  combination  called  a  plant.”  (Boc., 
Diz.,  iv.,  206.) 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  understood  that  production  is 
very  often  the  destruction  of  one  or  more  utilities  for  the  acquisi¬ 
tion  of  a  greater  utility. 

Many  a  time  it  happens  that  the  utility  of  a  thing  with  regard 
to  human  -wants  in  general  makes  no  increase  whatever,  because 
the  thing  undergoes  no  transformation.  It  merely  changes 
place  ;  for  example,  it  passes  from  a  place  where  there  is  abun¬ 
dance  of  it  to  another  where  it  is  scarce — which  is  done  by  means 
of  commerce.  This  is  also  called  production,  because  it  is  always 
true  that  the  object  is  brought  into  a  state  of  immediate  utility, 
which  it  had  not  before. 

We  may  give  the  name  of  productive  process  to  that  series  of 
operations  necessary  to  bring  an  object  from  the  state  in  which 
it  is  found  to  a  state  of  immediate  utility  that  is  desired.  It  is 
a  laborious  process,  for  it  implies  the  consumption  of  human 
strength,  of  values  often  great  and  various,  which  are  called 
the  expenses  or  the  cost  of  production. 

The  valuation  of  the  product  will  be  the  result  found  by  subtract¬ 
ing  the  value  that  the  object  had,  plus  the  sum  of  the  values  of  all 
the  expenses  of  production,  from  the  value  that  it  has  acquired. 
If  there  is  a  remainder,  the  production  is  remunerative — so 
much  the  more  as  the  remainder  is  greater.  This  is  because  the 
utility  introduced  into  the  object  is  so  much  more  appreciated 
than  the  sum  of  the  different  utilities  that  were  consumed  during 
the  productive  process. 

And  if  there  is  no  remainder,  must  we  say  that  production  is 
useless  ?  No  :  an  advantage  has  been  gained.  Values  have  been 
destroyed,  it  is  true,  but  they  revive  in  the  product.  During  the 
production,  moreover,  the  producers  have  lived  :  and  this  is  an 
advantage.  Does  not  humanity  live  by  the  destruction  of  values  ? 
and  if  these  do  good  in  any  way  the  service  rendered  by  them  is 
an , advantage.  Only  in  the  case  that  the  value  produced  is  less 
than  the  values  consumed,  can  or  should  it  be  said  that  the  pro¬ 
duction  was  disadvantageous  for  the  producer  or  for  society. 

Laws  of  Production. — Hence  it  is  understood  how  the  climax 


THE  FACTORS  IN  PRODUCTION 


107 


of  production  is  reached  when  the  remainder  after  the  subtraction 
mentioned  above  increases  daily  more  and  more,  and  how  the 
fundamental  law  of  production  is,  44  The  maximum  by  means  of 
the  minimum.” 

Thus  the  net  product  will  always  become  more  abundant. 
It  is  also  called  income  or  revenue,  from  which  results  the  wealth 
of  society. 

The  abundance  of  a  product  is  not  always  and  wholly  for  the 
advantage  of  him  who  produces  it.  Oftentimes  it  happens  that 
the  advantage  is  all  for  society  and  nothing  for  the  producer.  If 
the  greater  abundance  of  a  product  finds  in  the  market  the  same 
price  as  at  first,  the  income  of  the  producer  is  undoubtedly 
increased.  But  if  the  competition  of  producers  causes  a  fall  in 
price,  a  greater  supply  of  the  product  will  turn  to  the  advantage 
of  the  consumers,  not  of  the  producers. 

We  must  not,  however,  forget  that  production  has  naturally 
as  its  scope  to  serve  the  needs  of  all  civil  society  by  means  of 
consumption. 

This  consideration  suggests  some  other  laws  to  which  pro¬ 
duction  is  subject. 

“  Production  ought  to  be  proportionate  to  consumption  ” — 
that  is,  it  ought  to  be  regulated  by  the  wants  for  which  consump¬ 
tion  is  required.  A  product  has  value  inasmuch  as  it  is  useful, 
and  it  is  useful  inasmuch  as  it  satisfies  a  want.  If  we  take  away 
the  want,  then — weighing  every  circumstance  of  to-day  and 
to-morrow — the  product  has  no  longer  any  utility  or  value.  The 
over-production  of  an  article  may  occasion  evils  for  producers 
as  well  as  for  workpeople — leading  to  idleness,  vice,  &c. 

“  Production  ought  to  be  subordinate  to  the  moral  and  religious 
interests  of  humanity.” — The  reasonableness  of  this  law  appears 
from  almost  every  point  of  view  in  Christian  sociology.  The 
economic  man  is  to  be  at  the  service  of  the  moral  and  religious 
man.  Hence  the  production  of  whatever  offends  good  morals 
ought  to  be  prevented ;  and  the  productive  process  ought  to  be 
carried  on  in  such  a  way  as  to  respect  them.  Even  the  preserva¬ 
tion  of  the  life  of  man  is  a  moral  work  ;  therefore,  confections  of 
noxious  elements  ought  to  be  prohibited. 

When  a  value  is  consumed  in  the  process  of  production,  we  say 
that  it  renders  a  productive  service.  When,  on  the  other  hand, 
no  value  succeeds  to  a  value  consumed,  then  there  is  a  mere 
destruction  of  utility,  and  the  service  is  said  to  be  unproductive  ; 
such,  for  example,  is  the  service  of  the  wine  with  which  I  allay 
thirst. 


Section  II. — The  Factors  in  Production. 

It  is  very  natural  to  man  to  provide  for  his  wants.  These 
wants  calling  for  satisfaction,  and  the  shyness  of  nature  to  grant 
the  means,  unless  constrained  to  do  so,  persuade  him  very  soon  to 


108 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


apply  himself  to  the  work  of  production.  To  find  out  the 
factors  in  production,  we  have,  therefore,  only  to  examine  facts. 

And  facts,  in  every  productive  operation,  show  us  always  a 
skilful  hand,  an  object  on  which  this  hand  works,  and  an  instru¬ 
ment  or  means  of  which  it  makes  use.  So  it  is  with  the  man 
who  tills  the  field  ;  so  it  is  with  the  sculptor  who  shapes  the 
marble  ;  so  it  is  always.  Do  we  not  here  see  the  factors  in  pro¬ 
duction  ?  They  are  (i.)  nature  ;  (ii.)  labour  ;  and  (iii.)  capital. 

We  must  not,  however,  regard  these  three  agents  as  separated 
from  the  person  of  man,  who  with  his  mind  and  hand  directs 
and  governs  the  productive  operation.  We  shall  see  in  due  time 
how  nature  acts  when  'possessed,  by  man,  how  capital  springs 
up  and  increases  under  the  care  of  the  proprietor — to  say  nothing 
of  labour,  which,  apart  from  man,  is  not  even  conceivable,  whether 
we  consider  the  labour  of  the  brains  or  the  labour  of  the  hands. 

Hence  three  positions  from  which  men  concur  to  production  : 
as  land  proprietors,  as  capitalists,  and  as  industrialists.  These 
three  agents  should  aid  one  another  in  the  work  of  production. 
This  result  is  secured  by  special  contracts,  of  which  it  will  be 
necessary  to  speak. 

Section  III. — Harmony  in  Work. 

Facts  demonstrate  that  the  abundance  and  perfection  of  a 
product  are  more  notable  according  as  the  union  of  the  three 
agents,  nature,  labour,  and  capital,  is  more  strict. 

It  is,  therefore,  the  design  of  nature  that  the  greatest  harmony 
should  reign  among  them — the  source  of  so  much  individual  and 
social  good.  Hence  we  infer  that  men,  who  are  respectively 
invested  with  proprietorship  over  nature,  over  capital,  and  over 
labour  should — according  to  the  intention  of  the  Creator — 
agree  well  together.  “In  the  present  question  it  is  a  great 
mistake  to  suppose  that  one  class  is  inimical  to  another,  as  if 
nature  had  made  the  rich  and  the  poor  to  be  struggling  in  a 
continual  duel.  This  is  so  opposed  to  reason  that,  on  the  contrary, 
it  is  most  true  that,  as  in  the  human  body  the  various  members 
agree  together  and  form  that  order  which  is  called  symmetry, 
so  nature  desires  that  the  said  two  classes  should  live  in  concord 
and  thus  form  an  equilibrium.  Each  has  need  of  the  other  : 
capital  cannot  do  without  labour,  nor  labour  without  capital.” 
{Rerum  novarum.) 

But  harmony  between  moral  beings,  of  unequal  condition, 
ought  to  be  the  effect  of  justice  first,  and  then  of  charity.  Who¬ 
ever  among  them  finds  himself  stronger  ought  not  to  abuse  his 
strength  to  the  prejudice  of  others.  Not  enough.  As  it  is  for 
production  for  oneself  and  for  the  whole  human  race  that  the 
productive  faculties  are  given,  and  this  scope  is  not  attainable 
without  the  intimate  union  of  which  we  speak,  we  ought  to 


A  GREAT  PROBLEM 


109 


sacrifice  every  particle  of  self-love.  And  is  the  proprietor  the 
stronger  ?  Let  him  remember  that  by  an  ordinance  of  nature 
his  lot  is  not  separated  from  that  of  the  labourer,  who  is,  of 
necessity,  weaker.  To  this  weakness,  his  strength  ought  to  extend 
a  helping  hand.  It  ought  to  exercise  that  material  and  moral 
guardianship  which  every  master,  let  him  be  a  proprietor  or  a 
capitalist  or  an  industrialist,  owes  to  his  dependants,  and  which 
bears  the  name  of  Christian  Patronage.  To  this  the  Pope  alluded 
when  he  said  :  “We  wish  that  they  (the  more  'prominent  citizens) 
would  consider  that  they  are  not  free  to  care  or  not  about  the 
poor  ;  they  are  truly  bound  to  have  suph  care.”  (Encyc.  Graves 
de  communi  re.) 

This  patronage  implies 

1.  That  the  labourer  ought  to  be  secured  beforehand  against 
cases  of  misfortune. 

2.  That  some  plan  should  be  adopted  to  supply  him  with 
means  of  living  in  old  age,  when  he  can  no  longer  work. 

On  this  point,  Father  Lapeyre,  treating  of  Catholic  association, 
maintains  that  to  farm  labourers  there  ought  to  be  assigned 
a  pension  not  in  money,  but  in  the  enjoyment  of  some  land.  The 
learned  writer  adds  that  the  State  could  prevent  any  alienation 
or  sequestration  of  such  ground.  A  mortgage  for  old  age  would 
thus  be  taken  on  the  youth  of  the  labourer. 

By  this  means  the  labourer  would  not  be  tempted  to  seek  the 
town,  there  to  enjoy  his  pension  with  injury  to  the  family  life, 
which  ought  not  to  be  brought  into  troubles  away  from  the 
cultivation  of  the  beautiful  country. 

3.  The  labourer  ought  to  have  the  protection  of  his  employer, 
and  to  feel  the  benefit  of  a  true  and  sincere  affection. 


Section  IV. — A  Great  Problem. 

The  distribution  of  goods  is  a  great  problem  that  interests 
humanity,  and  that,  not  being  well  solved,  gives  rise  to  many 
and  most  serious  inconveniences — individual,  domestic,  and 
social.  It  is  a  problem  of  justice,  of  morals,  of  Divine  Providence. 

It  consists  in  this.  Worldly  goods,  of  whatever  kind,  are 
destined  by  nature  to  serve  for  the  satisfaction  of  all  mankind. 
To  answer  this  purpose,  they  should  pass  into  the  possession  of 
the  individual,  who,  by  consumption,  destroys  what  is  appreciable 
in  them.  And  these  goods  are  not  originally  in  the  possession 
of  anyone.  Nature  did  not  consign  to  any  individual  a  single 
particle  of  worldly  goods.  By  what  law  is  everyone  to  obtain  his 
respective  part  ? 

If  in  the  world  there  were  only  a  precise  quantity  of  goods,  and 
of  those  goods  alone  which  are  absolutely  necessary  to  maintain 
life,  one  single  rule  would  suffice,  that  of  dividing  in  equal  parts 
the  whole  mass  among  all  human  beings.  But  nature  was 


110  THE  ELEMENTS  OE  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


generous  :  it  lavished  goods  on  humanity  ;  it  gave  them  not  only 
for  the  wants  but  for  the  conveniences  of  life.  How  then  are 
they  to  be  distributed  ?  Has  nature,  which  did  not  make  the 
distribution,  given  us  any  rules,  at  least  in  substance,  on  the 
matter,  and,  if  so,  what  are  they  ?  Here  they  are  : — 

1.  There  are  in  the  world  some  goods  that  escape  the  private 
possession  of  everyone.  By  this  fact  nature  has  clearly  shown 
that  it  does  not  wish  these  goods  to  come  into  anyone's  possession. 

2.  Of  appropriable  goods — just  because  such — nature  permits 
the  appropriation,  provided  it  does  not  interfere  with  the  use 
that  the  whole  human  race  should  make  of  them. 

3.  Nature  also  wishes  the  private  appropriation  of  goods, 
which  serves  to  bring  about  more  easily  and  fully  the  object 
for  which  they  were  intended. 

4.  Nearly  all  worldly  goods  are  rendered  useful  to  man  by 
means  of  services  for  which  man  fits  them.  In  the  same  manner 
as  the  creation  of  worldly  goods  constitutes  creative  nature  their 
absolute  mistress,  so  the  fact  by  which  new  utilities  are  introduced 
into  these  goods  ought  to  give  to  the  agents  who  have  a  share 
in  it  a  right  of  mastership  over  them.  If,  therefore,  man,  as 
proprietor,  capitalist,  or  labourer,  concurs  to  their  production, 
the  produce  ought  to  be  his  in  proportion. 

5.  Where — in  any  region — neither  proprietorship  nor  labour 
gives  the  quota  of  produce  necessary  for  human  life,  there 
beneficence  ought  to  make  its  contribution.  No  creature  should 
perish  through  want  of  those  means  which  nature  has  given  in 
abundance  for  the  subsistence  of  all. 

These  general  rules  are  the  foundation  on  which  Christian 
economy  proceeds  in  the  distribution  of  the  goods  of  this  lower 
world.  Justice  and  charity  are  their  substance. 


Section  Y. — Proprietorship  or  Ownership. 

To  arrive  at  an  accurate  analysis  of  the  idea  of  proprietorship 
or  ownership  we  must  set  forth  clearly  the  natural  relations,  or 
those  which  nature  has  placed,  between  man  and  the  external 
world. 

Man  ought  to  live.  The  external  world  ought  to  supply  him 
with  the  means — on  one  condition,  that  he  should  labour. 

This  world  was  given  to  man,  not  as  an  individual,  but  as  a 
species.  He  then  labours,  not  as  a  species,  but  as  an  individual. 
The  world,  in  so  far  as  given  by  nature,  has  the  same  relations 
with  all  the  individuals  of  the  human  species.  In  so  far  as  it  ought 
to  be  worked  by  individuals,  that  it  may  yield  fruit  for  all,  it 
enters  into  special  relations  with  those  who  work  it.  Can  these 
be  relations  of  ownership  ? 

Let  us  first  of  all  see  what  ownership  means.  The  idea  of  owner¬ 
ship  is  elementary  ;  it  is  one  of  those  ideas  which  constitute  the 


PROPRIETORSHIP  OR  OWNERSHIP 


111 


patrimony  of  common  sense.  To  analyse  it  exactly  is,  therefore, 
not  easy  ;  yet  to  do  so  is  a  thing  of  the  utmost  importance.  We 
proceed  to  the  attempt  with  brevity.  If  I  see  a  man  holding 
an  umbrella  in  his  hand,  and  consider  that  he  not  only  uses  it 
to  keep  off  the  rain,  but  may  make  a  present  of  it,  or  may  sell  it, 
and  will  not  allow  anyone  to  snatch  it  out  of  his  hand,  I  say  that 
it  is  his  property,  or  he  has  the  ownership  of  it. 

From  this  fact,  which  the  idea  of  ownership  has  suggested 
to  me,  I  infer  that,  to  constitute  it,  the  right  of  using  a  thing 
is  not  enough,  but  one  should  be  able  to  give  it  away,  and  to 
drive  off  any  person  who  would  try  to  hinder  its  use.  Ownership, 
therefore,  includes — (i.)  a  positive  right  to  dispose  of  a  thing  as  we 
please,  and  (ii.)  a  negative  or  defensive  right,  to  prevent  the  thing 
from  passing  into  the  hands  of  others. 

Let  us  now  return  to  our  example.  There  are  two  facts  con¬ 
nected  with  the  man  who  carries  the  umbrella.  In  the  first  I  see 
that  he  may  throw  it  into  a  fire,  and  reduce  it  to  ashes,  to  be 
blown  away  by  the  winds.  In  the  second  I  see  another  man  who, 
with  a  strong  arm,  snaps  the  umbrella  out  of  his  hand,  and  takes 
it  off  with  him.  A  feeling  of  reproof  and  condemnation  rises  in 
my  soul  at  each  occurrence. 

In  the  first  case  I  see  a  man  who  abuses  what  belongs  to  him. 
The  thing  possessed  is  not  absolutely  his :  it  is  his  because  the 
absolute  owner  has  granted  it  to  him  that  it  may  be  of  service 
to  him.  In  other  words,  God,  who  is  the  Absolute  Master  of  all 
things,  has  given  this  thing  not  to  him  directly,  but  to  mankind, 
that  it  may  serve  them.  The  power  of  an  individual  to  take  a  thing 
to  himself  and  make  it  his  own  is  not  directly  from  God,  but 
consequently  on  the  established  order.  To  withdraw  things 
from  the  design  for  which  God  created  them  and  gave  them 
to  mankind,  is  what  no  owner  can  lawfully  do. 

He,  however,  who  reduces  a  thing  possessed  to  such  a  state 
that  it  can  no  longer  be  of  service  to  any  man,  does  not  offend 
against  what  is  called  commutative  justice,  which  is  a  relation 
between  two  particular  individuals,  and  carries  with  it  the  obliga¬ 
tion  of  restitution.  He  does  not  offend  against  this  justice 
solely  because  there  is  wanting  an  individual  who  has  for  himself 
alone  a  right  to  the  use  of  a  thing.  But  truly  he  offends  against 
divine  justice,  which  wishes  that  things  created  for  a  purpose 
should  attain  it,  and  does  not  allow  that  anyone  should  hinder 
them  from  doing  so.  To  this  Absolute  Master  he  should  in  some 
manner  make  satisfaction. 

He  sins  also  against  society,  which  has  a  right  to  use  this  thing 
that  God  created  for  mankind.  A  proprietor  should  always 
remember  that,  if  the  ownership  of  a  thing  is  his,  yet  the  use  of  it 
is,  under  given  conditions,  common  to  the  whole  human  race. 

Liberalism  has  created  an  idea  of  ownership  that  cannot  be 
maintained ;  it  is  contrary  to  the  designs  of  the  Creator ;  it  is 
unnatural.  Liberalism  has  substituted  the  absolute  for  the 


112  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


relative,  and  constituted  the  owner  a  despot  over  that  which  he 
owns.  It  has  removed  his  obligations  from  the  tablets  of  the 
moral  law.  Accordingly,  he  stands  free  from  all  responsibility, 
before  God  and  man,  in  the  use  of  what  he  calls  his  own.  Owner¬ 
ship  thus  conceived,  no  reason  appears  why  there  should  be  any 
condemnation  for  prodigality,  luxury,  dissipation,  &c. 

But,  we  repeat,  this  idea  of  ownership  cannot  be  admitted. 
There  is  a  general  scope  for  which  God  has  destined  useful  things, 
and  from  which  there  should  be  no  deviation :  it  is  the  service 
of  the  whole  human  race.  Every  idea  that  we  form  of  private 
ownership  ought  to  be  subordinate  to  this  general  scope,  over  the 
attainment  of  which  God  Himself  watches.  If,  under  the  regime 
of  private  ownership,  this  scope  is  hindered,  ownership  goes  beyond 
its  limits  and  requires  to  be  brought  back  to  its  duty. 

The  point  is  this :  the  reason  for  the  world,  external  to  man, 
is  the  service  that  it  renders  to  the  whole  human  race.  Take 
away  this  end,  and,  in  the  actual  order  of  things,  no  purpose  for 
its  existence  can  be  found. 

Now,  that  an  individual  may  possess  himself  of  a  thing  with  the 
view  of  attaining  fully  the  end  designed  by  the  Creator,  we  can 
understand,  and  it  is  all  right.  That  he  may  withdraw  the  thing 
from  the  attainment  of  this  end,  either  by  depriving  it  of  an 
aptitude  for  attaining  such  end,  or  by  turning  it  entirely  to  his  own 
service,  is  absolutely  wrong.  In  such  case  the  thing  does  not 
realise  the  intentions  of  the  Creator  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  frustrates 
them.  From  these  considerations  we  conclude : — 

1.  An  owner  has  not  a  right  to  abuse  a  thing  possessed  :  he 
cannot  destroy  it,  nor  deprive  it  of  the  powers  with  which  nature 
supplies  it. 

2.  He  cannot  deny  the  fruits  of  it  to  his  brethren  who  have 
need  of  them,  and  who  are  willing  to  comply  with  the  conditions 
that  justice  requires,  so  as  to  attain  the  scope  intended  by  the 
Creator. 

3.  The  only  admissible  idea  of  a  private  owner  is  the  evangelical 
one,  which  makes  him  an  administrator  of  goods  for  the  whole 
human  race  ;  and  in  this  point  there  is  perfect  harmony  between 
faith  and  reason. 

4.  The  idea  of  ownership  given  by  St.  Thomas  is  true  :  it  should, 
he  says,  be  so  conceived  that  the  thing  may  be  one's  own,  but  the 
use  of  it  common. 

According  to  these  ideas,  the  assertion  is  very  logical  that 
private  property  has  a  social  function  which  the  owner  ought  to 
keep  in  view  when  exercising  his  rights.  “  And  let  no  one,"  says 
Weiss,  “regard  this  as  an  injury  to  personal  power,  because  no  one 
exists  outside  the  social  body,  nor  can  anyone  be  imagined  without 
obligations  towards  the  solidarity  of  human  interests."  * 

*  The  following  remarks  of  Abbe  Naudet  in  his  little  work  on  Sociology 
(chap,  v.)  are  very  just : — “  Say  to  one  of  onr  great  proprietors  that  he 
has  no  right  to  leave  his  lands  uncultivated,  that  the  land  should  nourish 


RIGHT  AND  EFFECTS  OF  OWNERSHIP  113 


Pope  Leo  XIII.  teaches  the  social  function  of  ownership,  and 
shows  its  advantages  thus  : — 

“  We  have  seen  that  this  labour  question  cannot  be  solved 
unless  we  take  as  a  principle  that  private  ownership  should  be 
held  sacred.  The  laws,  therefore,  ought  to  favour  this  right, 
and  to  encourage  as  many  as  possible  to  become  owners. 

“  Many  advantages  will  follow  from  this ;  and,  first  of  all, 
a  more  equal  division  of  national  wealth.  Revolutions  have 
separated  the  citizens  into  two  castes,  differing  widely  from  each 
other.  On  the  one  side,  a  powerful  faction,  because  exceedingly 
rich  :  which,  having  in  its  grasp  all  kinds  of  production  and 
traffic,  exhausts  all  the  sources  of  wealth,  and  exercises  great 
influence  on  the  affairs  of  State.  On  the  other  side,  a  weak  and 
needy  multitude,  with  ulcerated  minds,  always  ready  for  dis¬ 
turbance.  Now,  if  the  industry  of  this  multitude  were  roused 
with  the  hope  of  obtaining  some  ownership  in  land,  the  one  class 
would  gradually  draw  nearer  to  the  other,  an  end  being  put  to 
the  immense  distance  between  extreme  poverty  and  enormous 
wealth. 

“  Moreover,  there  would  be  a  greater  supply  in  the  fruits  of 
the  earth.  When  men  know  that  they  work  on  their  own 
ground,  they  tire  themselves  far  more  willingly ;  nay,  they  learn 
to  love  the  soil  cultivated  by  their  own  hands,  from  which  they 
expect  not  only  food,  but  an  abundance  of  good  things  for  them¬ 
selves  and  their  families.  It  is  easy  to  understand  how  such 
alacrity  tends  to  increase  the  produce  of  the  land  and  the  wealth 
of  the  nation. 

“  Another  advantage  would  follow — attachment  to  their 
native  place.  Men  would  not  exchange  their  own  country  for 
a  foreign  one,  if  their  own  enabled  them  to  lead  a  tolerable  life.” 
(Rerum  novarum.) 


Section  VI. — The  Right  and  the  Effects  of  Ownership. 

The  idea  of  private  ownership  having  been  explained,  let  us 
see  if  a  right  exists  to  it.  We  have  seen  that  such  a  right  could 
be  given  ;  we  have  now  to  inquire  if  it  has  been  given. 

There  are  in  man  some  goods  so  personal  that  the  discussion 
whether  they  belong  to  him  who  has  them  cannot  be  serious. 

man  and  not  be  used,  in  vast  extent,  as  a  hunting-ground  for  idlers.  The 
great  proprietor  will  look  at  you  in  astonishment,  and  candidly  answer  : 
‘  The  land  is  my  own,  and  I  can  do  what  I  like  with  it.’  He  is  mistaken. 
He  imagines  himself  honest,  and  he  is  in  error.  He  is  evidently  ignorant  of 
his  social  duty,  because,  as  Monsignor  Ketteler  observes  in  one  of  his  admir¬ 
able  discourses,  the  doctrine  that  makes  man  the  God  of  his  property — that 
gives  him  the  right  to  destroy  the  fruits  of  property,  which  he  ought  to 
distribute  among  his  poor  brethren — that  gives  him  the  right  to  satisfy  his 
unbridled  sensuality  as  he  pleases,  is  a  doctrine  not  only  unchristian,  but 
unnatural.”  — Trans . 

H 


114  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


My  mind  is  mine,  the  moral  energy  that  carries  me  to  study  is 
mine,  just  as  much  as  strength  belongs  to  the  man  who  digs  with 
his  spade.  Such  goods  nature  gives  to  the  individual,  and  they 
are  naturally  his.  But  of  goods  that  are  external  to  man,  can  he 
have  ownership  ?  Masters  in  natural  law  bring  forward  an 
abundance  of  arguments  to  prove  that  private  ownership  is  a 
natural  right.  We  wTill  summarise  here  the  arguments  of  which 
the  Pontiff  makes  use  in  Rerum  novarum  : — 

1.  There  ought  to  be  a  proportion  between  him  who  uses  a  thing 
and  the  thing  itself.  Man  makes  use  of  the  things  of  this  world, 
and  so  does  the  beast.  But  man  excels  the  beast  by  reason. 
Besides  the  use  of  external  goods,  which  is  proper  even  to  the 
beast,  we  must  allow  to  man  something  more  that  corresponds 
to  reason,  with  which  he  is  enriched.  This  something  more  is 
ownership,  of  which  rational  creatures,  who  can  adapt  the  means 
to  the  end,  are  alone  capable.  As  man  is  rational,  he  provides 
for  himself  against  the  future.  But  this  cannot  be  done  other¬ 
wise  than  by  private  ownership,  with  which  he  secures  the  means 
of  existence  for  the  morrow. 

2.  Nature  does  not  yield  fruit  without  labour.  But  he  who 
labours  on  a  field  leaves,  as  it  were,  an  impress  of  his  own  person¬ 
ality  on  it.  This  personality,  though  infused  into  an  object, 
does  not  cease  to  belong  to  the  labourer.  On  the  other  side,  it  is 
so  incorporated  with  the  object  as  to  make  one  thing  with  it. 
“  Seeing  that,  to  obtain  the  goods  of  nature,  man  employs  the 
industry  of  his  mind  and  the  strength  of  his  body,  he  thereby 
makes  his  own  that  part  of  the  earth  which  he  brings  into  cultiva¬ 
tion,  and  on  which  he  leaves,  as  it  were,  the  impress  of  his 
personality  ;  so  that  he  may  justly  possess  that  part  as  his  own, 
and  no  one  has  a  right  to  molest  him  in  doing  so.” 

3.  The  Pontiff  adds  the  consent  of  the  human  race  in  practically 
recognising  the  right  of  the  individual  to  private  ownership,  and 
the  sanction  that  divine  and  human  laws  have  always  given  to 
such  a  right. 

We  will  add  an  argument  that  St.  Thomas  sets  forth  in  an 
admirable  light.  There  is  no  need  to  demonstrate  that  the 
means  of  living  for  the  individual  as  well  as  for  society,  must  be 
derived  by  labour  from  nature,  and  that  production  will  be  so 
much  the  more  abundant  as  labour  will  be  the  more  assiduous, 
but  take  away  from  man  the  right  of  ownership,  and  let  him 
learn  that  the  ground  on  which  he  works  is  not  his  own,  that  the 
fruit  of  his  toil  and  diligence  will  not  be  his  own,  and  what  will 
you  see  ?  .  .  .  You  will  see  the  spade  fall  from  his  hands,  and  the 
thoughtful  head  of  the  scientist,  who  is  building  castles  in  the  air 
for  some  new  invention,  begin  to  nod  with  sleep.  Ah,  com¬ 
munism  !  Communism  is  a  system  of  universal  poltroonery,  and, 
therefore,  of  famine  for  all.  “  If  the  way  were  opened  to  envy, 
recrimination,  and  discord — every  stimulus  being  taken  from 
individual  genius  and  industry — the  very  sources  of  riches  would 


DUTIES  OF  AUTHORITY  TO  OWNERSHIP  115 


be  dried  up ;  and  the  dreamt-of  equality  would  be  nothing  in 
fact  but  universal  abjection  and  misery/’  (Rerum  novarum.) 

If,  therefore,  without  private  ownership,  the  means  intended 
by  nature  for  the  preservation  of  civil  society  cannot  be  procured, 
and  this  preservation  is  an  ordinance  of  nature,  we  must  say 
that  private  ownership  is  also  an  ordinance  of  nature. 

Effects  of  Ownership). — If  the  right  of  the  individual  to  the 
appropriation  of  goods  cannot  be  denied,  what  effect  does 
this  right  produce  in  him,  when  he  is  lawfully  in  possession 
of  it  ? 

There  are  two  consequences  of  ownership.  The  first  is  that 
the  owner  can  dispose  at  his  pleasure  of  the  thing  owned.  He  can, 
therefore,  sell  it,  make  a  present  of  it,  &c.,  within  the  limits  of  the 
just  rights  of  ownership  well  conceived.  The  second  is  that  the 
owner — just  because  he  is  the  owner — is  the  master  of  those 
products,  or  of  those  parts  of  a  product,  which  are  true  effects  of 
the  productiveness  of  the  thing  possessed.  The  effect  being 
proper  to  the  cause,  it  should  pertain  to  him  to  whom  the  cause 
itself  pertains.2 

Section  YII. — Duties  of  Political  Authority  with  regard 

to  Ownership. 

To  derive  the  right  of  private  ownership  from  the  supreme 
authority  was,  and  perhaps  still  is,  a  foolish  idea  of  economists 
not  distinguishing  well  between  one  thing  and  another.  Political 
authority — 

1.  Should  safeguard  the  rights  of  private  ownership  :  both 
because  the  violation  of  them  grievously  injures  the  right  of 
individuals,  and  because  it  is  disastrous  to  the  public  weal.  “  It 
is  a  principal  duty  of  rulers  to  secure  private  ownership  by  wise 
laws.  It  is  most  necessary,  in  these  times  of  unrestrained  greed, 
that  the  people  should  be  kept  to  their  duty  ;  for,  though  all  may 
justly  strive  to  improve  their  condition,  yet  neither  justice  nor  the 
public  good  allows  any  one  to  seize  the  property  of  another,  under 
the  absurd  pretence  of  making  an  equality  in  fortunes.”  ( Rerum 
novarum.) 

2.  It  can  and  should,  when  morality,  the  public  safety,  or  the 
public  welfare  requires  it,  place  limits  to  the  use  of  private  owner¬ 
ship.  Hence  the  laws  that  forbid  men  to  carry  arms,  to  sell 
poisons,  &c. 

3.  It  can  and  should  make  enactments  with  regard  to  services, 
rights  of  way,  &c. 

4.  It  can,  if  expedient,  limit  the  rights  of  hunting,  cutting  wood, 
fishing,  &c. 

5.  It  has  a  right  of  expropriation  when  the  public  good  requires 
such,  and  it  exercises  the  same  with  the  least  possible  injury  to 
private  good. 


116  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECO  NOME 


6.  It  can  and  should  guard  the  right  of  inheritance,  and  modify 
it  with  a  view  to  the  welfare  of  families. 

7.  In  resard  to  minors,  wonem  persons  misbie  to  manage 
their  property,  it  has  a  right  to  limit  or  even  to  prevent  the  use 
thereof. 


b  -  xes. — Dr.  Render  said,  *  '  It  is  not  only  an  anti-ChgistianbntaaaMifc- 
natcral  doctrine  that  makes  man  a  God  over  his  substance,  are  grants  he. 
the  rinht  to  terra  to  the  satisfaction  er  his  pleasures  and  his  t nr es trained 
sensuality  those  fruits  of  property  wmzh  he  onnnt  to  distribute  among  his 
poor  brethren." — Cement  IT.  in  the  13th  century  permitted,  to  strangers 
the  cultivation  of  the  third  part  of  an  estate  on  which  the  owner  obstinately 
refused  to  permit  any  :  mem:  :m  by  what  right  ! — d :  :o*dxng  to  Henry 
George.*  private  ownership  is  the  cause  of  the  intolerable  inecuRides  that 
exist  am : n-r  men — line  same  e:::e  asserts  that  tae  my  means  ::  abolishing 
present  pauperism.  whiz-h  in  z  reuses  day  by  day.  is  me  abolition  of  private 
ownership — Su  Thomas  admits  that  it  may  in  a  certain  sense  be  said  that 
God  wished  the  earth  to  be  the  common  patrimony  of  ah  2a,  2  m  q.  lxvL.  a. 

2 — The  difference  b*etween  ownership  and  possession — Ownership  supposes 
reason  and  liberty — What  class  of  people  are  enemies  of  pm v ate  ownership  ? — 

If  present  social  disorders  are  owing  to  private  ownership  1 — Socialism 
would  not  remedy  present  social  disorders — What  remedies  are  suggested 
by  Christian  Democracy  ? 

CHAPTEE  m.  1 

ABUNDANCE  OF  WORLDLY  GOODS. 

Section  L — Nattbe. 

As  some  philosophers.  given  to  atheism.  speak  often  of  nature 
to  avoid  mention  of  God.  so  sene  economists,  seized  with,  a  similar 
desire,  speak  often  of  labour,  and  avoid  mention  of  God  even  under 
the  name  of  nature,  as  if  artificial  riches  were  the  produce  of 
human  activity  alone.  This  slur  thrown  on  nature  is  unjust, 

F  or  on  what  would  the  labour  of  man  fad  if  not  on  nature  7  It 
is  absurd  to  suppose  that  an  arm  wielded  in  vacancy  can  produce 
anything. 

Examining  nature  in  connection  with  the  wants  of  mam  to 
satisfy  which  it  was  created,  we  hud  it  enriched  with  a  great 
abundance  of  elements  and  powers.  Of  natural  elements,  some 
are  brought  by  nature  itself  to  a  state  of  immediate  utility,  as 
fruits  :  others  require  to  be  dug  up.  as  iron  :  others  have  to  be 
worked  on.  and  so  placed  in  a  condition  to  be  consumed,  as  wheat. 

The  Creator  has  given  certain  powers  to  nature,  by  means  of 
which  a  produce  passes  to  a  more  or  less  advanced  state  of 
maturity  or  perfection  Of  tnese  powers  some  are  organic!  as 
the  vegetative  in  plants  and  reproductive  in  animals :  others 

*  An  Ameri can  author  (1539-lStf7b  who  wrote  several  books  on  Land 
questions.  It  was  only  to  private  ownership  in  lard  that  he  was  opposed. 

He  taught  respect  for  private  ownership  in  everything  else. — Tram. 


THE  EARTH 


117 


are  inorganic,  as  cohesion,  gravity,  attraction,  &c.  These  powers 
man  can  increase,  regulate,  apply  in  such  a  way  as  to  obtain  a 
more  abundant,  speedy,  perfect  production. 

To  deny  all  this  abundance  of  elements  and  powTers  that  nature 
supplies  to  production  is  necessarily  to  mistake  facts,  and  to 
oppose  what  they  clearly  teach.  Whoever  attentively  examines 
productive  facts  sees  at  once  that  the  various  goods  which  nature 
provides  for  production  are  diversified  in  the  relations  that  they 
can  have  with  man,  and  in  the  ways  in  which  they  can  concur 
to  productive  operation. 

The  cultivable  earth  is  certainly  the  most  important  of  the  pro¬ 
ductive  instruments  prepared  by  nature.  A  waterfall,  a  mine, 
a  spa,  are  elements  that  concur  to  production  in  a  manner 
different  from  that  of  cultivable  ground :  but,  in  common  with 
it,  they  can  enter  into  the  ownership  of  man.  The  heat  of  the 
sun,  the  force  of  the  wind,  &e.,  differ  in  this,  that  they  cannot 
be  appropriated  ;  but  everyone  can  use  them  to  obtain  products. 

It  is,  indeed,  true  that  a  man  with  knowledge  and  skill  can 
obtain  from  such  free  elements  some  special  services  that  a  man 
without  ability  cannot  derive  from  them.  And  thus,  in  a  certain 
way,  he  takes  possession  of  them ;  but  it  is  an  indirect  possession — 
that  is  to  say,  through  owning  the  means  that  are  adapted  to 
obtain  such  special  services. 


Section  II. — The  Earth. 

Providence  concurs  to  the  work  of  production  by  the  power 
that  it  continually  infuses  through  natural  agencies.  Between 
these  agencies  a  difference  must  be  pointed  out :  some  act  as 
direct  causes  of  production  ;  others  instead  as  simple  instruments 
that  help  the  work  of  man.  We  treat  of  the  former  in  this  section, 
as  they  represent  nature  in  its  productive  work ;  and  we  bring 
them  all  together  under  one  name,  The  Earth. 

The  earth  produces  very  little  of  itself  :  it  requires  the  labour 
of  man.  Man  by  labour  draws  the  earth  near  to  him,  makes  it 
his  fellow-labourer,  with  a  view  to  reap  fruit  from  it. 

Nature  has  deposited  in  the  earth  a  productive  virtue,  by 
which  it  prepares  within  itself  in  the  most  admirable  manner 
the  elements  of  produce. 

The  earth  is  a  producer  only  in  the  sense  given  by  us  to  the 
word  “  production  ”  :  it  has  not  a  creative,  but  a  transforming 
power.  If  we  analyse  chemically  a  little  stalk  of  corn,  we  find 
elements  that  were  in  the  ground  by  the  disposition  of  nature, 
or  placed  there  under  the  form  of  manure  by  the  hand  of  man, 
or  drawn  from  the  atmosphere. 

Accordingly,  the  earth  may  well  be  called  a  machine,  which 
elaborates  certain  materials,  in  order  to  restore  them  afterwards 
in  elements  of  consumption  for  man. 


118  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


Section  III. — Land  Ownership. 

Our  ancestors  showed  that  they  had  very  precise  ideas  about 
the  services  that  the  earth  renders  to  the  human  race  when  they 
called  it  a  kind  mother  ( alma  parens).  In  the  same  spirit  Sully 
remarks  that  tillage  and  pasturage  are  the  two  great  paps  that 
nourish  the  human  race. 

We  are  not  going  to  assert  that  the  cultivation  of  the  earth 
is  alone  fruitful.  Some  have  said  and  written  so,  but  they  have 
said  and  written  wrong.  Only  a  false  idea  of  production  could 
lead  to  such  a  strange  opinion.  We  say  that  even  other 
industries,  which,  by  modifying  or  transforming  the  fruits  of  the 
earth,  adapt  them  to  supply  our  wants,  are  productive.  We 
recognise,  however,  that  the  earth  is  the  first  mother  of  all  pro¬ 
ductions,  that  its  fruits  are  the  basis  of  all  utilities,  and  that 
agriculture  is  the  queen  of  industries. 

What,  indeed,  do  other  industries  do  but  work  on  the  “  rough 
materials  ”  that  the  earth  after  labour  has  given  to  them  ? 

Hence  a  special  importance  attaches  to  land  riches  before 
all  others.  For  if  goods  are  to  be  valued  by  the  utility  that  they 
render  to  men,  land  is  the  place  on  which  all  other  goods  can  be 
raised.  Thus  Weiss  says  : — “  Land  property  united  with  labour 
is  the  primitive  form  of  capital.  All  forms  of  movable  capital 
can  be  reduced  to  this,  and  ought  to  permit  of  being  so  reduced — 
otherwise  they  are  not  capital  in  reality.”  (p.  478.) 

On  account  of  this  special  importance  that  agriculture  has  over 
other  industries,  it  is  highly  proper  that  the  owner  of  land  should 
exercise  his  social  functions  and  discharge  the  duties  of  Christian 
patronage  towards  his  dependants,  lest  ownership  being  dis¬ 
sociated  from  labour,  the  most  necessary  of  industries  should  be 
neglected.* 

“  We  do  not  grow  weary  of  repeating  that  ownership  in  general, 
and  land  ownership  in  particular,  is  not — no,  it  is  not  a  sinecure, 
a  mere  title  to  income,  a  guarantee  of  individual  wellbeing,  as  it 
was  understood  in  the  ancient  law  of  Pagan  Rome,  and  much 
less  is  it  that  open  field  for  the  speculation  of  capitalists  which 
the  new  paganism  of  classic  economy  would  make  it ;  but  it  is  an 
office,  a  mission,  a  right  confirmed  and  ennobled  by  the  task  of 
a  social  function,  as  has  been  proclaimed  by  the  Rome  of 
Christian  ages,  from  St.  Paul  to  Leo  XIII.  Riches,  like  personal 
faculties,  are  subordinated  in  the  plan  of  nature  to  purposes 
assigned  for  him  who  holds  them,  whether  as  an  individual  or  as 
a  sharer  in  civil  community,  and  consequently  they  imply 
grave  responsibilities,  both  individual  and  social.”  So  said 
Mauri  at  the  Congress  of  Padua.  ( Atti ,  p.  150.) 

*  A  very  interesting  and  instructive  book,  Contemporary  Ireland,  by  a 
French  gentleman,  Mr.  L.  Paul-Bubois,  has  lately  (1908)  appeared.  It 
would  be  well  for  Ireland  if  Englishmen  understood  Irish  affairs  as 
thoroughly  as  this  Frenchman. — Trans. 


LAND  RETURN 


119 


Section  IV. — Land  Return. 

In  common  language  we  say  that  revenue  or  income  or  return 
is  the  net  produce  of  a  productive  operation. 

But  we  have  seen  that  every  produce  can  be  the  effect  of  several 
causes.  Now  that  fraction  of  the  land  produce  which  is  due  to  the 
productive  force  of  the  soil  or  farm  takes  the  name  of  “  land 
return/'"  Let  us  give  an  example.  Titus  sows  a  quintal  of  wheat 
value  for  32  lire  *  ;  he  spends  about  50  lire  in  manuring  it,  and 
70  lire  in  wages  to  labourers.  He  obtains  in  produce  ten  quintals 
of  wheat  value  for  300  lire.  This  procluce  is  due  in  proportion 
partly  to  labour  ;  partly  to  capital,  that  is,  seed,  manure,  plough, 
&c.  ;  and  partly  to  the  natural  powers  of  the  soil.  This  last 
portion  is  called  the  “  land  return.”  Hence  the  difference  is  seen 
between  return  and  rent.  The  rent  is  the  sum  paid  to  the  owner 
for  the  temporary  use  of  the  land  in  the  state  in  which  it  is  found, 
and,  therefore,  with  the  things  that  are  on  it,  with  the  capital 
invested  in  it,  and  making  account  also  of  circumstances  in  which 
the  ground  is  placed — circumstances  that  can  raise  or  lower  the 
rent.  The  “  return  ”  takes  its  place  in  the  amount  of  rent, 
because  no  owner  gives  for  nothing  the  vegetative  forces  of  his 
land ;  and,  looking  into  the  rent,  we  shall  find,  besides  the  portion 
that  is  due  as  interest  on  capital,  that  portion  also  which 
corresponds  to  compensation  for  the  use  of  the  productive  forces 
of  the  soil.  This  is  the  “  land  return.” 

The  same  quantity  of  wheat  being  sown  in  different  fields, 
and  the  same  amount  of  capital  and  labour  being  expended  on 
it,  the  produce  is  not  the  same ;  it  varies  from  field  to  field. 
Whence  the  difference  ?  From  the  difference  of  the  productive 
qualities  of  the  respective  fields.  Therefore,  the  productive  force 
is  not  the  same  in  all  lands,  and  accordingly  the  return  is  not 
the  same. 

But  return  is  the  fruit  of  every  ground,  because  in  every  ground 
we  find  productive  powers.  In  every  agricultural  produce  there 
is  a  portion  that  is  due  to  the  natural  force  of  the  soil  from  which 
it  is  drawn.  The  Pope  calls  this  productive  force  “  an 
inexhaustible  fecundity.”  ( Rerum  novarum.) 

From  these  brief  remarks  it  may  be  gathered  that  the  return 
is  something  positive  and  absolute,  as  regards  the  soil,  in  which 
are  the  natural  and  indestructible  forces  of  production,  and  as 
regards  the  produce,  of  which  a  part  is  undoubtedly  due  to  the 
aforesaid  productiveness. 

Ricardo,  an  English  economist,  framed  a  theory  on  return  that 
is  certainly  very  ingenious,  and  as  such  deserving  of  the  applause 
with  which  it  was  hailed,  but  in  reality  apt  only  to  generate 

*  The  word  “  quintal  ”  is  derived  from  L.  centum,  a  hundred.  It  denotes 
a  measure  of  100  Ihs.  The  Italian  lira  is  equal  to  about  ten  pence  English. 
Lire,  the  plural,  is  pronounced  much  like  Leary. — Trans. 


120  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


confusion,  and  to  take  away  from  return  that  absolute  and 
positive  character  which  we  recognise  in  it.  He  substituted  a 
relative  for  the  absolute  character  of  return.  He  mistook  return 
for  its  valuation. 

When  is  there  return  according  to  Ricardo  ?  Return  arises 
when,  in  any  region,  after  the  cultivation  of  the  better  lands, 
the  cultivation  of  the  worse  is  turned  to.  The  same  capital  and 
the  same  labour  spent  on  the  two  kinds  of  land  give  a  greater 
produce  in  the  former  and  a  less  in  the  latter.  The  difference 
is  the  land  return.  Even  on  the  same  land  (still  according  to 
Ricardo)  the  return  may  be  made  sensible.  Cultivated  with  a 
coefficient  of  100  between  capital  and  labour,  it  gives  1,000. 
If  I  add  a  second  capital  of  100,  I  shall  not  have  a  produce  of 
2,000,  but  of  1,700.  The  difference  is  due  to  the  strength  of  the 
soil,  and  is  the  return. 

We  reject  this  theory,  which,  if  it  does  not  annul  the  positive 
existence  of  land  return,  never  appreciates  it,  and  thus  leads  to 
disastrous  consequences. 

Other  economists  have  waged  a  more  exterminating  war 
against  land  return.  They  absolutely  and  always  deny  it.  Their 
principle  is  that  everything  comes  from  labour.  Why  does  one 
piece  of  land  produce  more  than  another  ?  Because  it  carries 
labour  -within  it,  spent  on  it  in  the  past,  and  capital  that  was 
introduced,  also  a  fruit  of  labour. 

Marx,  setting  out  from  another  principle,  that  all  value  comes 
from  labour  incorporated  in  produce,  arrives  at  the  same  con¬ 
sequence — that  is,  there  ought  to  be  nothing  for  the  owner  of  a 
farm  by  reason  of  the  possession  of  the  farm.  If,  therefore,  a 
man  lets  land,  to  take  a  price  as  compensation  for  the  productive¬ 
ness  of  the  land  let  by  him  to  a  tenant  is  an  injustice. 

After  the  arguments  used,  nothing  remains  for  us  but  to 
conclude.  Every  piece  of  land  is  in  a  way  to  produce,  and, 
certain  conditions  being  given,  does  in  fact  produce  a  utility, 
which  is  called  its  return.  This  return  belongs  to  him  wrho 
lawfully  owns  the  land,  because  the  effect  follows  the  owmer 
of  the  cause. 

Section  Y. — Which  is  the  Best  Form  oe  Ownership  ? 

The  existence  of  owners  of  land  follows  as  a  consequence  from 
the  state  of  human  affairs.  But  owners  may  have  small  or  large 
properties.  And  here  the  question  a-rises  :  which  is  the  best 
kind  of  ownership — the  small,  or  the  large,  or  any  other  ? 

An  excessive  smallness  of  ownership,  that  which  makes  neither 
a  people  of  owners  nor  a  people  of  beggars,  carries  with  it  great 
inconveniences,  and  cannot  be  called  useful.  It  does  not  place 
the  owner  in  a  position  to  procure  the  coefficients  of  a  culture 
truly  productive.  Economically,  in  short,  it  has  a  bad  effect. 
Socially  it  has  also  another  effect  to  be  feared — a  proletariat 


WHICH  IS  THE  BEST  FORM  OF  OWNERSHIP?  121 


of  country  people.  From  too  little  ground  it  is  very  difficult 
to  rise  honestly  to  a  decent  position,  and  very  easy  to  descend 
to  a  worse.  Thus,  a  very  small  property  does  not  suit.  Only 
as  an  exception  is  there  any  utility  to  be  found  in  it. 

What  about  the  latifundium  or  large  landed  estate  ?  As  an 
exception,  when  formed  into  small  properties,  it  may  have  some 
advantages.  Certain  costly  works  may  be  accomplished  on  the 
estate  of  a  latifundist.  But,  as  a  rule,  it  has  also  great  incon¬ 
veniences.  It  puts  the  owner  into  the  occasion  of  giving  up  the 
cultivation  of  land — of  abandoning  country  life,  and  going  away 
to  some  city,  far  from  his  tenants,  there  to  spend  his  time  in 
luxury  and  amusement. 

He  who  separates  himself  entirely  from  what  he  possesses, 
dispenses  himself  from  every  burden  that  possession  and  pro¬ 
duction  imply,  and  selfishly  secures  to  himself  an  income  for  an 
easy  life,  is  the  most  unnatural  type  of  an  owner  that  can  be 
found.  Society  is  indebted  to  him  for  nothing — except  for  the 
decay  that  he  causes  in  one  of  the  sources  of  social  wellbeing. 

Another  discreditable  side  of  his  character  is  shown  by  the 
latifundist  that  is  unconscious  of  his  social  position.  He  secures 
an  income  for  himself  by  means  of  rent.  This  is  a  contract,  as 
we  have  seen,  not  in  itself  to  be  condemned.  And  if  the  lati¬ 
fundist  entered  into  it  mindful  of  his  social  duties,  he  would 
accompany  it  with  such  conditions  as  to  render  it  useful  to  his 
brethren.  The  division  of  his  property  among  many  small  holders 
would  be  a  means  of  benefiting  them,  and  placing  many  families 
on  a  way  of  living,  at  least  not  worse  than  before. 

But  this  renting  is  not  without  trouble  or  responsibility.  To 
be  free  from  it,  the  landlord  often  has  recourse  to  the  system 
of  large  rents.  He  consigns  his  whole  property  to  one  single 
individual,  the  middleman,  who  is  placed  between  him  and  the 
cultivators.  The  conditions  of  the  contract  may  not  be  equally 
advantageous ;  but  at  all  events  the  security  and  the  absence 
of  care  are  a  great  compensation  for  any  disadvantage. 

This  intermediate  master,  longing  to  attain  a  dignified  position, 
and  unable  to  mount  thereto  on  the  small  margin  left  him  above 
the  rent — what  does  he  do  ?  He  makes  profit  out  of  the  poor 
families  of  the  labourers. 

Their  wages  consist  of  a  few  quintals  of  wheat,  a  little  Indian 
corn,  and  a  small  monthly  payment  of  money.  As  regards  the 
quality  of  the  commodities  granted  to  them,  truth  compels  us 
to  say  that  what  is  most  worthless,  what  is  most  decayed  by  time, 
what  is  considered  in  the  market  as  fit  only  for  beasts,  is  the 
portion  of  the  poor  country  people.  Of  the  low  damp  gloomy 
cabins  given  them  to  inhabit,  there  is  no  need  for  a  long  de¬ 
scription.  And  no  one  dares  to  object ;  for  the  position  is  pre¬ 
carious  from  year  to  year.  Everyone  is  mindful  of  St.  Martin’s 
Day  and  the  First  of  March,  which  too  often  present  a  sorrowful 
procession  of  carts,  laden  with  ragged  bundles,  and  stooped 


122  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


emaciated  figures — pale  barefooted  children  and  ill-clothed 
mothers — who  go  to  another  impoverishment,  another  martyrdom. 

And  if,  far  off  in  the  gay  city,  the  pleasure-seeker  considers 
that  his  income  is  too  small,  the  next  settlement  day  will  afford 
him  am  opportunity,  not  to  be  neglected,  of  raising  the  rent. 

What  will  the  middleman  then  do  ?  Unfortunate  himself, 
he  considers  that  he  has  a  right  to  add  new  misery  to  the  fate  of 
the  miserable  tenants,  by  squeezing  them  still  more. 

For  the  rest,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  property  accumulated 
in  the  hands  of  a  few  becomes  a  source  of  envy,  of  greed,  and  often 
of  fierce  conflict  in  society.  The  Pope  counts  among  the  causes 
of  the  social  question  at  the  present  day  that  “  wealth  is  accumu¬ 
lated  in  a  few  hands  and  poverty  widely  spread."  This  is  a 
state  of  things  that  cannot  be  in  the  designs  of  Providence  :  a 
few  privileged  men  raised  high  on  the  throne  of  ownership,  and 
below,  in  the  shade,  a  host  of  miserable  wretches.3 

What,  therefore,  is  the  best  form  of  ownership  ?  By  “  best " 
we  here  understand,  not  only  that  which  contributes  to  a  more 
abundant  and  perfect  production,  but  also  that  w'hieh  helps  to 
attach  the  family  to  the  domestic  roof — fomenting  love,  peace, 
and  concord,  and  being  a  source  of  life  for  all  civil  society. 

So  much  being  premised,  we  say  that  a  preference  is  to  be 
given  to  moderate  ownership.  On  land  that  a  man  can  call  his 
own,  he  lays  the  basis  of  improvement  for  himself  and  his  house. 
He  lives  tranquil,  looks  forward  confidently  to  the  future,  envies 
the  lot  of  none.  His  thoughts  are  generous,  and  out  of  the  fruits 
of  his  farm  he  does  not  grudge  something  to  the  needy,  some¬ 
thing  for  the  wants  of  his  country  and  of  his  Church.  We  find 
such  moderate  owners  here  and  there  over  the  land,  even  on  the 
Alpine  hills.  Their  families  in  the  district  or  parish  where  they 
live  are  like  the  chief  walls  of  a  house  :  they  hold  it  all  well 
together,  they  do  honour  to  it. 

For  the  good  of  all,  every  effort  should  be  made  to  increase 
the  number  of  these  moderate  owners ;  and  it  is  to  be  desired 
that  the  laws  should  move  in  their  favour.  The  Pope  says 
expressly  :  “  The  laws  ought  to  favour  this  right  (of  private 
ownership),  and  to  cause  the  number  of  owners  to  increase  as  much 
as  possible."  And  a  little  before,  among  the  counsels  that  he 
gives  to  the  prudent  workman,  is  the  following  : — “  If  he  is  wise, 
he  will  easily  turn  his  mind  to  thrift,  and,  corresponding  with  the 
impulse  of  nature,  act  in  such  a  way  that  there  may  remain 
after  his  expenses  something  to  be  employed  in  the  acquisition  of 
a  little  property." 

Section  YI. — Aid  for  Small  Owners. 

The  duty  of  coming  to  the  aid  of  small  ownership,  of  freeing 
it  from  proximate  or  remote  danger  of  diminution  or  total  ruin, 
is  only  too  evident.  Experience  and  study  will  show  the  most 


AID  FOE  SMALL  OWNEES 


123 


effectual  means.  Before  all  it  is  necessary  to  have  recourse  to 
the  State,  whose  intervention  is  required  in  a  matter  that  deeply 
concerns  the  existence  of  the  people.  Let  the  State  promote 
such  a  distribution  of  land  property  that  every  day  the  number 
of  moderate  owners  may  increase.  It  is  understood  that  public 
power  has  not  the  faculty  of  taking  from  one  man  to  give  to 
another.  Yet  all  nations  are  convinced  that  certain  regulations 
ought  to  emanate  from  public  authority,  tending  to  direct  the 
transmission  of  property  towards  those  centres  in  which  it  may 
contribute  most  to  the  common  good. 

The  public  power  will  succeed  by  opportune  laws  regarding 
inheritance  ;  by  a  more  equitable  scale  of  public  tributes  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  rules  that  we  have  already  mentioned  ;  and  by  helping 
those  institutions  which  have  as  their  object  the  defence  of 
property  and  the  advance  of  rational  agricultural  industry. 

1.  Some  people  recommend  a  law  of  succession  that  would 
anticipate  or  supersede  the  will  of  the  testator.  It  should  prevent 
property  from  being  too  much  diminished  by  unwise  divisions, 
or  becoming,  by  excessive  accumulations  in  one  place,  a  great 
estate.  Everybody  can  understand  that  the  question  is  a  knotty 
one.  Others  propose  that  the  Hoferrolle  should  be  established. 
This  is  the  name  (German)  given  to  a  public  register  kept  by  the 
State,  in  which  every  head  of  a  family  describes  the  possession 
that  will  pass  to  one  heir,  without  any  division.  The  Hoferrolle , 
however,  is  a  poor  remedy,  because  it  leaves  the  effect  to  the 
views  and  wishes  of  the  heads  of  families,  of  whom  very  few 
know  how  to  rise  to  a  calm  consideration  of  social  things.  Others 
again  propose  the  institution  of  what  the  Germans  call  Anerben- 
recht,  and  the  French  call  the  system  of  Famille  Souche.  It 
consists  in  this,  that,  antecedently  to  all  will  of  a  testator,  it  is 
settled  that  a  farm  shall  pass  entire  to  one  only  heir.  To  each  of 
the  co-heirs  a  quota  will  be  given — in  fixing  which  the  law  can 
intervene,  so  that  the  heir  may  not  be  burdened  with  debts. 

To  the  co-heirs,  instead  of  capital,  either  in  money  or  in  kind, 
a  quota  might  be  fixed  to  be  paid  every  year,  by  way  of  pension. 
More  useful  socially  would  be  an  institution  that  would  be  in  a 
position  to  accept  the  annual  incomes  fixed  for  the  co-heirs,  and 
to  realise  the  same  in  capitals,  which  it  would  transfer  to  them. 
Thus  would  be  formed  new  centres  of  ownership  and  of  capital. 
Our  banks  might  be  able  to  accomplish  this  work. 

The  portion  of  the  eo  heirs  is  not  regulated  according  to  the 
exchange  value  of  the  property  inherited,  but  according  to  the  net 
produce.  And  the  reason  is — if  the  heir  is  an  honest  man,  as  he 
ought  to  be,  he  will  remember  that  land  capital  is  not  to  serve 
for  the  uses  of  life.  Its  produce  does  so  ;  because  the  true 
inheritance  to  be  divided  is  the  produce.  All  with  a  view 
that  neither  the  Anerbe  nor  the  property  may  be  laden  with 
debt. 

2.  The  country  house,  the  farming  implements,  and  the  land 


124  THE  ELEMENTS  OE  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


itself  to  a  certain  extent — say  two  hectares,  or  about  five  acres — 
should  not  be  liable  to  sequestration  or  alienation. 

3.  A  tributary  system  should  be  adopted  by  which  (i.)  a  small 
property — say  below  one  hectare — would  be  exempt  from  any 
succession  tax ;  (ii.)  by  which  he  who  has  more  pays  more — 
to  be  obtained  by  a  progressive  impost  on  large  properties  ;  and 
(iii.)  by  which  a  minimum  of  agricultural  return  would  be  free 
from  all  imposts.  We  have  said  that  the  impost  should  be 
raised  from  that  which  is  over  and  above  the  wants  of  individual 
and  domestic  life.  To  tax  what  is  indispensable  for  life  is  a 
social  injustice.  Now  when  a  rural  property  is  scarcely  sufficient 
to  enable  the  owner,  who  toils  on  it,  to  live  there  with  his  family, 
this  property  leaves  no  margin  for  contributing  to  the  public 
good.4  The  owner  is  entitled  by  social  justice  to  enjoy  whatever 
it  yields,  (iv.)  The  system  of  imposts  should  extend  to  every 
fertile  sod,  so  that,  the  tributary  burden  falling  on  many  shoulders, 
each  sod  may  suffer  less.  At  the  present  day  agriculture  groans 
under  the  scourge  of  ma  ny  charges,  while  thousands  and  thousands 
of  speculations,  however  profitable,  are  untouched.5  A  bill  has 
been  brought  in  to  apply  taxation  to  the  returns  on  commercial 
transactions.  We  shall  see  if  it  arrives  in  port. 

4.  Every  means  should  be  taken  to  facilitate  agrarian  credit. 
The  owner  often  finds  himself  in  need  of  capital  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  cultivation.  He  requires  money,  he  requires  credit 
at  the  lowest  interest.  The  establishment,  therefore,  of  Raiffeisen 
Rural  Chests  and  of  Social  Banks  ought  to  be  made  easy.  There 
are  other  forms  of  agrarian  co-operation  explained  by  writers  on 
the  subject.* 

5.  A  convenient  diminution,  if  not  a  total  abolition,  of  standing 
armies  should  be  made,  so  as  not  to  withdraw  hands  from  agricul¬ 
ture,  but  rather  to  give  them  to  it.  An  understanding  among 
different  States  might  here  be  attended  with  much  good. 

6.  The  organisation  of  owners  should  be  promoted.  It  is 
not  at  all  true  that  organisation  is  suited  only  for  the  labouring 
classes.  It  brings  advantage  to  all  the  classes  that  are  respectively 
inferior  to  the  upper  classes.  Owners  must  defend  themselves 
against  unfair  action  taken  by  the  government,  against  over¬ 
bearing  industrialists,  against  intermediate  dealers  in  buying  as 
well  as  in  selling.  The  organisation  that  we  have  maintained 
and  recommended  will  serve  this  purpose  admirably. 

The  assistance  of  private  individuals  is  also  to  be  sought.  It 
gives  life  to  institutions,  of  which  some  are  a  substitute  for  law, 
as  far  as  can  be,  and  would  not  exist  if  the  law  existed  ;  others 

*  See  People's  Banks,  by  Henry  W.  Wolff.  London :  P.  S.  King  & 
Son. — Also  Political  Economy,  by  C.  G.  Devas,  M.A.  London  :  Long¬ 
mans,  Green  &  Co. — Much  valuable  information  on  organising  work  can  be 
obtained  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Irish  Agricultural  Organisation  Society, 
22  Lincoln  Place,  Dublin.  In  1907  the  I.A.O.S.  counted  912  branch 
societies  and  82,472  members,  with  a  trade  turn-over  of  £2,017,623. —  Trans . 


LABOUR 


125 


complete  the  law,  with  which  and  under  which  they  act.  The 
work  of  individuals  will  be  rendered  efficacious  by  the  institution 
of  Secretaryships  for  the  People,  Rural  Chests,  Mutual  Help 
Societies,  Banks,  Provision  Stores,  Rural  Unions,  &c.  All, 
however,  should  be  catholic — that  is  to  say,  free  from  every 
taint  of  private  speculation.6 


Themes. — Make  a  short  commentary  on  those  words  of  Return  novarum  : 
“  The  right  of  private  ownership  being  derived,  not  from  human  but  from 
natural  law,  the  State  cannot  abolish  it,  but  may  temper  its  use,  and 
harmonise  it  with  the  common  good.  The  State  is  therefore  unjust  and 
cruel,  if,  under  the  name  of  tributes,  it  requires  from  individuals  more  than 
their  quota” — The  emigration  of  a  multitude  of  small  holders  is  a  sign 
that  land  ownership  does  not  give  that  ease  or  comfort  with  which,  generally 
speaking,  the  small  holder  is  content :  what  remedies  are  efficacious  to 
remove  or  to  lessen  the  social  evil  of  emigration  ? — When  an  individual 
acquires  lawfully  the  possession  of  some  goods,  it  does  not  at  all  follow  that 
civil  society  renounces  its  rights. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

MAN  MUST  WORK. 

Section  I. — Labour. 

Labour  means  human  activity  applied  to  the  works  of  nature, 
in  order  to  have  produce.  Man  alone  is  capable  of  this  most 
noble  function,  because  he  alone,  having  reason,  knows  how  to 
adapt  means  to  an  end — how  to  direct  his  powers,  that,  co¬ 
operating  with  nature,  he  may  reap  profit  from  them.  We  do 
not  give  the  name  labour  in  its  proper  sense  to  the  fatigue  of  oxen 
or  other  animals  that  draw  the  plough.  They  weary  themselves 
blindly  as  brutes.  Men  alone  labour.  Labour,  however,  is 
certainly  fatiguing.  Whether  it  is  performed  by  body  or  mind, 
it  causes  fatigue — to  endure  which  man  is  not  impelled  except 
by  proportionate  motives. 

These  motives  are : — (i.)  Necessity.  Land  not  cultivated 
has  a  very  poor  productive  power,  which  is  soon  exhausted. 
In  order  to  live,  man  must  consume  some  useful  things,  and 
these  he  ought  to  create  for  himself  by  labour,  (ii.)  The  desire 
of  being  in  a  better  position.  Man  produces  in  proportion  to  the 
labour  that  he  expends.  If  he  labours  more,  he  produces  more 
for  the  wants  of  life,  and  so  he  is  better  off.  (iii.)  Duty.  We 
Christians  recognise  this  prerogative  in  labour  :  it  is  a  duty 
imposed  on  us  by  the  Creator.  It  is,  moreover,  a  punishment 
here  inflicted  on  the  whole  human  race  for  original  sin.  This 
last  motive  gives  strength  to  the  obligation  of  labour  ;  and  at  the 
same  time  explains  the  condemnation,  so  grave,  so  general,  to 
which  humanity  has  been  subjected.* 

*  Many  labouring  men  lead  a  very  penitential  life.  Happy  for  them 
when  they  know  how  to  sanctify  their  work  by  pious  intentions  ! — Trans. 


126  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


Unchristian  sociologists  do  not  recognise  these  elements  of 
morality  in  labour,  but  regard  it  as  a  disgrace,  a  burden,  a  slavery. 
With  these  there  can  be  no  love  of  labour,  except  in  so  far  as  it 
appears  advantageous. 

History  gives  an  admirable  confirmation  of  what  we  have 
just  said.  What  idea  of  labour  was  entertained  in  pagan  society  ? 
What  account  was  made  of  labourers  ?  Aristotle,  in  his 
Politics ,  says  that  labour  is  unworthy  of  man.  Plato,  in  his 
Republic,  speaks  of  it  only  with  contempt.  Even  the  great 
Cicero  himself,  in  the  Tusculan  Disputations,  refers  to  it  as  a 
thing  fit  only  for  a  barbarous  civilisation.  Naturally,  a  like 
opinion  was  held  of  labourers.  In  those  splendid  times,  they 
who  enjoyed  the  fruits  of  the  labour  of  others  were  those  who 
spoke  of  them  with  so  little  consideration — those  magnates  who 
wasted  the  substance  of  the  people  and  diverted  themselves 
in  the  circus.  To-day  there  is  again  the  same  contempt  for 
labour.  We  know  districts  in  which  the  rich  speak  of  the  lower 
classes  with  disdain,  scorn,  and  abuse.  What  injustice  and 
ingratitude  !  If  such  conduct  was  a  blemish  on  pagan  ages, 
it  is  also  a  blemish  on  ours,  which  tends  to  paganism.  The 
same  causes,  the  same  effects  ! 

The  economy  of  liberalism  regards  the  value  of  labour  only 
in  its  economic  relations.  With  it  labour  is  a  necessary  fact, 
because  this  fact  accompanies  another  fact,  which  is  produce  ; 
and  from  the  value  of  the  latter,  it  j  udges  the  value  of  the  former. 
Nor  is  the  conclusion  without  logic  ;  the  value  of  a  stream  of  water 
is  known  by  the  benefit  that  it  brings  to  a  meadow.  This  is  the 
theory  of  mercenary  labour — a  theory  that,  in  practice  and  in 
times  of  abundance,  satisfies  both  masters  and  labourers,  but 
never  satisfies  human  dignity  or  justice. 

From  the  analysis  made  of  labour,  it  follows  that  it  is  essentially 
a  work  of  man,  that  is,  of  a  rational  creature.  It  is  an  act  of  the 
reason,  which  knows,  and  of  the  will,  which  decides.  To  regard 
it  in  a  mere  mercenary  light  is  to  place  it  on  a  level  with  the  work 
of  beasts  of  burden. 

Yet  more.  Labour  is  not  chosen  by  man,  but  is  imposed  on 
him  by  a  precept.  A  high  moral  principle  presides  over  the  fact 
of  labour.  No  one,  according  to  our  view,  can  free  himself  from 
it.  The  most  comfortable  social  position  can  no  more  dispense 
a  man  from  this  duty  than  the  opportunity  of  being  dishonest 
can  dispense  him  from  the  duty  of  being  honest.  Production  is 
also  benefited  by  this  morality  of  labour,  because  the  abundance 
and  perfection  of  produce  are  sure  to  be  in  proportion  to  the 
labour,  and  to  the  love  with  which  this  labour  is  undergone. 
It  is,  therefore,  a  monstrous  injustice  to  regard  labour  as  an 
ordinary  article  of  merchandise,  and  to  subject  it  to  the  changes 
of  the  market. 

Has  labour  therefore  a  value,  and  what  is  it  ?  Yes,  it  has 
a  value,  and  by  means  of  a  proper  contract  it  may  be  bartered. 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  LABOUR 


127 


Hence  Christian  economists  do  not  hesitate  to  call  it  quaedam 
merx,  or  merx  sui  generis,  a  peculiar  kind  of  merchandise.  The 
exchange  of  labour,  however,  is  not  made  for  any  commodity 
whatsoever  that  serves  man ;  but  for  that  commodity  which  is, 
in  quantity,  designed  as  a  tax  by  nature  for  the  support  of  him 
who  labours.  In  short,  in  the  contract  of  labour  there  is  an 
exchange  of  which  one  quantity  is  labour,  and  the  other  quantity, 
or  term  of  the  equation,  should  not  be  simply  a  commodity, 
but  such  a  measure  of  commodity  as  is  naturally  required  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  labourer.  This  is  an  element  that  ought 
to  enter  essentially  into  the  valuation  of  labour,  and  make  labour 
worth  as  much  as  a  man’s  life,  which  depends  on  it.7 

The  fruits  of  labour  we  ought  to  consider,  not  only  in  their 
relation  with  the  individual,  but  with  all  society.  There  are 
labours  that  are  advantageous  to  the  individual  in  so  far  as  they 
are  beneficial  to  society.  Their  fruits  pass  to  individuals  by  way 
of  the  social  body.  Such  are  public  works  :  man  enjoys  them 
because  he  lives  in  society.  There  are  other  labours  that  do 
not  bear  fruit  at  all  for  the  individual,  but  for  the  social  body — 
often  not  even  for  the  present  social  body,  but  for  one  to  come. 

The  man  who  makes  a  good  his  own,  in  so  far  (either  directly 
or  indirectly)  aids  society.  And  thus  he  fulfils  a  twofold  duty, 
that  of  promoting  both  private  and  public  weal. 

We  must  be  careful  not  to  give  the  name  of  labour  only  to 
that  movement  of  the  limbs  which  leads  to  material  produce. 
Into  such  an  error  those  may  fall  who  do  not  consider  that  man 
has  wants  and  duties,  moral  and  religious,  which  he  wishes  to 
satisfy — wants  and  duties  to  which  material  production  is  not 
superior,  but  subordinate.  If,  therefore,  these  interests  exist, 
and  manual  labour  is  not  capable  of  satisfying  them,  we  must 
admit  that  there  are  other  labours  which  are  no  less  important 
or  necessary  for  the  wellbeing  of  mankind. 

The  social  state,  for  which  nature  destined  man,  originates 
many  labours  that,  without  society,  would  have  no  reason  to 
exist.  Such  are  all  those  labours,  physical  and  intellectual, 
which  are  required  to  give  existence  and  increase  to  private  and 
domestic  wellbeing — to  which  the  social  body  aspires,  as  to  its  end. 

Labour,  so  ordered  as  to  satisfy  the  physical  and  moral  wants 
of  man,  has  every  reason  for  its  existence  and  congruity.  If 
this  end  is  neglected,  labour  is  no  longer  labour — that  is  to  say, 
it  is  no  longer  a  rational  use  of  strength  ;  it  is  blind  fatigue,  like 
that  of  a  beast ;  it  is  a  disorder  that  man  ought  to  banish  from 
his  life.  How  many  of  those  labours  which  are  only  beastly 
fatigues  ought  to  disappear  from  the  world  ! 

Section  II. — Productivity  of  Labour. 

Is  that  new  utility  wThich  follows  a  productive  process  due 
to  labour  ?  Is  it  due  wholly  or  in  part  ? 


128  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


The  first  question  is  therefore  an  inquiry  if  labour  is  pro¬ 
ductive.  Reasoning  must  lead  us  to  facts.  Before  production 
we  have  elements  with  an  aptitude  to  become  a  utility,  or  rather 
with  power  to  give  existence  to  a  new  utility.  Untouched  by 
the  hand  of  man,  these  elements  will  never  produce  a  utility 
that  does  not  exist.  Let  his  hand  draw  near,  let  labour  be  spent 
on  them  :  a  new  utility  exists.  To  what  is  it  due  ? 

Some  one  will  answer  :  To  nature.  In  part  we  do  not  deny 
it.  In  a  natural  object  there  is  the  virtue  of  a  new  utility.  But 
such  virtue  does  not  come  into  activity  without  labour.  This 
consequence  shows  the  causality  of  labour  in  produce ;  it 
declares  the  productivity  of  labour. 

The  encyclical  in  several  places  recognises  the  productivity 
of  labour.  Of  agricultural  labour  it  says  : — “  The  soil  that  is 
tilled  by  the  hand  and  skill  of  the  cultivator  is  no  longer  what 
it  was  before  :  from  being  wild  it  becomes  fruitful — from  being 
barren,  fertile.  These  improvements  are  now  so  blended  with  it 
that  for  the  most  part  they  are  inseparable  from  it/5  Further 
on,  it  asserts  that,  to  provide  society  with  an  abundance  of 
material  goods,  “  the  toil  and  skill  of  the  poor  are  most 
efficacious  and  necessary,  whether  applied  in  fields  or  in  work¬ 
shops.  Indeed  it  may  be  said  with  truth  that  it  is  by  the  labour 
of  the  working  classes  that  States  grow  rich.55 

Is  every  produce,  therefore,  properly  and  entirely  due  to 
labour  ?  Neither  one  supposition  nor  the  other  is  true.  It  is 
not  true  that  every  produce  comes  from  labour,  because  there  are 
things  into  the  production  of  which  labour  does  not  enter  much 
or  little.  Fruits  given  by  uncultivated  ground  are  certainly  not 
due  in  any  way  to  labour.  Nor  is  it  true  that  produce  depending 
on  labour  is  exclusively  due  to  labour.  We  proved  what  part 
nature  has  in  production,  and  we  shall  see  what  part  capital  has 
in  it.  To  mistake  the  causality  of  nature  and  capital,  by  attribut¬ 
ing  it  entirely  to  labour,  is  not  justice,  because  it  is  not  truth. 

How  far  does  the  productivity  of  labour  extend  ?  It  cannot 
be  generally  defined.  There  are  products  whose  value  is  due 
in  a  greater  degree  to  nature  and  capital,  and  in  a  less  degree 
to  labour.  We  may  take  as  an  example  a  gold  ear-ring,  whose 
value  is  owing  chiefly  to  its  precious  metal.  And  there  are 
others  in  which  labour  preponderates.  A  German-silver  watch 
owes  its  value  chiefly  to  labour,  and  very  little  to  material. 

It  is,  therefore,  evident  that  ownership  and  labour  are  the  two 
levers  on  which  the  public  wellbeing  depends.  This  contribu¬ 
tion  which  labour  brings  to  the  common  prosperity  is  called 
the  social  function  of  labour. 

Every  good  of  this  world  has  naturally  a  two-fold  mission— 
to  help  the  human  individual  and  all  mankind  in  general.  Often 
the  social  function  goes  contrary  to  the  individual ;  often  it  is 
not  so.  But  neither  society  can  stop  for  itself  the  current  that 
runs  generously  to  benefit  the  individual,  nor  can  the  latter 


RELATIONS  BETWEEN  LABOUR  AND  PRODUCE  129 


oppose  an  obstacle  to  it  when  it  rushes  on  to  benefit  society. 
This  is  a  principle  that  often  turns  up  in  the  course  of  our  thoughts, 
and  it  leads  us  here  to  assert  the  social  function  of  labour. 

Labour  produces ;  and  produces  for  the  individual.  Quite 
true.  But  let  us  be  permitted  to  ask  if,  in  the  intentions  of  nature, 
it  produces  only  for  the  individual.  And  how  would  the  general 
end  of  the  preservation  of  the  whole  human  race  be  thus  attained  ? 
Will  it  be  said,  by  the  labours  of  each  one  ?  But  can  each  one 
produce  by  himself  all  that  he  needs  ?  And  if  there  is  anyone 
who  cannot  produce,  must  he  perish  ?  And  if  anyone,  even 
through  idleness,  has  no  produce,  and  finds  himself  with  empty 
hands,  must  he  cease  to  live  ? 

Behold  how  and  why  the  produce  of  labour  should  come  forth 
from  the  hands  of  the  individual  and  fall  into  the  bosom  of  society, 
carried  thither  on  the  streams  of  justice  and  charity  !  “  Work¬ 

people  concur  very  much  to  the  common  good  ...  In  every 
well-ordered  State  there  ought  to  be  a  sufficient  supply  of  material 
goods,  the  use  of  which  is  necessary  for  the  practice  of  virtue. 
Now,  to  provide  these  goods,  the  labour  and  skill  of  the  poor, 
whether  employed  on  the  land  or  in  the  workshops,  are  supremely 
necessary  and  efficacious.  Indeed  it  may  be  truly  said  that  it  is 
by  the  labour  of  the  working  classes  that  States  become  rich.” 
(Rerum  novarum.) 

By  the  light  of  this  function,  the  labourer  grows  much  in 
worth  and  nobility.  Outside  of  it,  he  makes  a  miserable  figure — 
all  selfishness.  We  wish  him  to  be  what  he  ought  to  be,  the 
Angel  of  Divine  Providence. 

Section  III. — Relations  between  Labour  and  Produce. 

Considering  labour  in  relation  to  produce,  we  ought  to  pay 
attention  to  three  elements  : — (i.)  The  duration  of  the  labour ; 
(ii.)  its  intensity ;  and  (iii.)  the  love  or  diligence  with  which 
it  is  performed.  We  ought  also  to  consider  in  produce  (i.)  its 
abundance  and  (ii.)  its  perfection.  Both  should  accompany 
produce  in  order  that  production  may  be  successful.  An  abun¬ 
dant,  but  imperfect,  produce  does  not  satisfy  ;  a  good,  but  scarce, 
produce  does  not  suffice. 

To  establish  the  relation  that  exists  between  produce  and 
labour,  we  must  make  account  of  the  various  elements  noted  above. 
If  it  immediately  appears  that  the  quantity  of  produce  is  pro¬ 
portional  to  the  duration  of  labour,  whoever  seriously  reflects 
will  remember  that  with  the  duration  of  labour  its  intensity  will 
be  inversely  proportional ;  and,  likewise  the  love  or  diligence  in 
performing  it.  It  is  well  known  then  that  if  an  abundance  of 
produce  is  to  be  expected  from  the  duration  of  labour,  its 
excellence  or  perfection  is  to  be  expected  rather  from  the  love  or 
diligence  with  which  that  labour  is  performed. 

i 


130  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 

We  may,  therefore,  venture  to  say  that  the  produce  obtained 
by  multiplying  together  the  duration,  intensity,  and  diligence 
of  labour  is  in  a  direct  ratio  with  the  produce  obtained  by  multi¬ 
plying  together  the  abundance  and  perfection  of  the  produce. 

To  obtain,  therefore,  a  produce  that  may  satisfy,  we  must 
keep  an  eye  on  the  elements  by  which  labour  influences  produce, 
and,  having  carefully  studied  their  nature,  maintain  or  increase 
their  coefficients,  which  are,  as  it  were,  the  sources  of  all  produce.* 
These  sources  are  moral  or  physical  according  as  they  influence 
the  spiritual  or  the  material  part  of  man. 

Section  IV. — Moral  Coeeficients  of  Labour. 

It  is  proper  that  we  should  give  the  first  place  to  moral  co¬ 
efficients.  With  us  a  man  is  a  man,  and  not  merely  an  animal ; 
and  his  muscles  obey  the  dictates  of  his  will,  enlightened  by 
reason.  The  ox  obeys  the  goad.  Not  so  with  man :  his  goad 
is  his  will.  The  first  source  of  productive  labour  is,  therefore, 
in  the  mind  ;  and  those  motives,  those  considerations,  which  will 
be  capable  of  deciding  the  human  will  to  labour  will  be  moral 
and  most  powerful  coefficients  to  labour.  They  are  according 
to  the  genius,  the  intellectual  views,  and  even  the  passions,  to 
which  the  individual  gives  himself. -j*  We  shall  refer  to  the  chief 
of  them  : — 

1.  Here  we  must  place  the  Christian  idea  of  labour.  It  shows 
that  labour  is  a  duty  and  a  merit.  It  makes  the  labourer  feel  a 
great  dignity — that  of  being  by  his  work,  whatever  it  may  be,  a 
collaborator  with  Divine  Providence.  This  idea  does  not  demean 
or  deject  the  labourer,  who,  therefore,  does  not  hate  his  condition. 
On  the  contrary,  he  loves  it ;  and,  while  he  wipes  away  the  sweat 
from  his  brow,  he  sings  the  most  j  oyous  ditties. 

The  idea  of  the  cremationists  J  regarding  labour,  common  to 
all  those  who  have  no  Christian  feelings,  reduces  labour  to  a 
necessity.  Necessity  degrades,  and  degradation  causes  hatred. 
To  hear  the  socialists,  one  would  suppose  that  they  had  nothing 
but  praise  for  labour  and  labourers  ;  but  at  what  do  they  aim  ? 
At  the  avoidance  of  labour.  They  shun  it  so  much  that  they 
oblige  the  State  to  impose  it  on  them.  They  are  the  leaders  of 

*  The  celebrated  American  inventor,  Edison,  has  remarked  of  his 
wonderful  inventions  that  they  are  due  to  2  per  cent  of  inspiration  (derived 
from  books),  and  98  per  cent,  of  perspiration  (spent  on  experiments).  Plenty 
of  intellectual  work  ! — Trans, 

f  Coefficient  is  a  word  often  used  in  Algebra.  It  generally  denotes  a 
figure  placed  before  a  letter.  Thus,  let  x  represent  an  unknown  quantity. 
Then  2x  represents  twice  that  quantity.  Here  2  is  the  coefficient  of  x, 
and  2x  is  the  product  (twice  x)  obtained  from  the  multiplication  of  a:  by  2. — 
Trans. 

I  A  cremationist,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  is  one  who  advocates  the  burning 
of  the  human  body  after  death. — Trans. 


PHYSICAL  COEFFICIENTS  OF  LABOUR 


131 


discontented,  unprincipled,  furious  workmen,  because  full  of 
rancour  and  hatred. 

2.  Vocation.  A  vocation  to  labour,  rather  than  to  anything 
else,  is  the  call  of  the  Author  of  man.  There  is  reason  to  believe 
that  this  call  will  be  accompanied  with  a  special  fitness  for  labour. 
Not  even  of  this  element  does  socialism  make  account,  for  it 
delivers  us  all,  like  a  flock  of  sheep,  into  the  hands  of  the  State. 
The  State  will  then  employ  us  at  that  work  which  it  judges  most 
useful,  and  so  we  must  carry  the  chain. 

3.  The  hope  of  bettering  one’s  condition.  The  workman,  no 
matter  how  lowly  his  employment,  hopes  by  labour  to  enlarge 
and  adorn  his  house,  to  obtain  more  light  for  his  rooms,  to  furnish 
his  table  with  food  more  worthy  of  himself  and  his  family.  He 
always  dreams  of  a  future  more  prosperous.  Poor  dreams, 
which  are  often  only  illusions,  but  dreams  that  make  him  live 
content,'  and  work  well  with  a  healthy  stomach  and  a  light  heart ! 
According  to  the  Pope,  “  the  proximate  end  that  the  workman 
proposes  to  himself  is  the  acquirement  of  some  property.”  It 
is  easy  to  understand  how  socialism,  which  would  have  all  classes 
labouring  under  the  direction  of  the  State,  defeats  this  hope, 
and  thus  induces  workmen  to  throw  away  the  spade,  the  hammer, 
and  the  trowel. 

To  these  conditions  of  labour  must  be  added  all  others  that 
are  capable  of  giving  satisfaction  to  the  spiritual  part  of  the 
workman.  A  certain  variety  of  work — an  honest  liberty  in 
fulfilling  his  duties  as  a  man,  a  father,  a  husband,  a  Christian — 
a  kindly  smile  beaming  on  the  countenance  of  the  employer — 
these  things  console  the  mind  of  the  workman  and  continually 
develop  new  germs  of  activity. 


Section  V. — Physical  Coefficients  of  Labour. 

Having  dealt  with  the  nobler  part  of  man,  which  commands, 
it  is  proper  that  we  should  consider  the  inferior  part,  which, 
a  living  instrument,  executes  the  commands  given  by  the  former. 
Poorly  can  the  mind  be  the  centre  of  strong  enterprising  energies, 
if  the  powers  of  the  body  are  weak,  if  the  muscles  are  languid. 
To  be  in  good  form,  the  man  who  labours  has  various  needs 
to  be  provided  for  : — 

1.  An  abundant  wholesome  nutritious  food — especially  good 
bread.*  To  give  poor  labourers  a  tainted  or  decaying  food, 
or  food  in  small  quantity,  besides  being  an  injustice,  is  a  mistaken 
speculation.  Their  labour  will  be  feeble,  deficient,  and  the 
produce  will  be  scarce.  Some  employments  put  a  special  trial 

*  Some  excellent  little  books  on  matters  of  this  kind,  such  as  Woman’s 
Share  in  the  Industrial  Revival  of  Ireland,  by  the  Most  Rev.  Dr.  Kelly, 
Bishop  of  Ross,  have  been  published  by  the  Catholic  Truth  Society  of 
Ireland. — Trans. 


132  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


on  the  vital  organs  of  poor  workmen.  For  these  a  special  kind 
of  sustenance  would  be  required. 

2.  A  healthy  dwelling.  Nature  has  granted  a  real  super¬ 
abundance  of  some  goods  that  are  strictly  required.  How  much 
air,  how  much  light,  it  has  given  !  And  why  should  poor  work¬ 
people  be  stinted  with  regard  to  them  ?  Their  houses  should 
therefore  be  airy,  clean,  neat,  not  damp  ;  in  short,  healthy. 
Improvements  of  this  kind  have  been  undertaken  with  happy 
success  by  Catholics  here  in  Italy,  as  well  as  elsewhere.  Even 
economical  institutions  ought  to  lend  a  hand.  Government  and 
social  bodies  ought  to  facilitate  the  work.  In  the  Journal  of 
Economists ,  G.  Spera  has  made  some  very  good  remarks  on  this 
subject.  He  shows  the  model  of  a  workman's  house,  and  proposes 
to  secure  the  ownership  of  it  to  the  occupant  after  a  fixed  number 
of  years,  or  even  sooner,  if  the  head  of  the  family  should  be  taken 
away  by  a  premature  death.*  The  breaking  up  and  scattering 
of  a  family  would  thus  be  avoided. 

3.  Favourable  conditions  for  work.  This  applies  to  work¬ 
people  shut  up  in  close  places,  where  the  air  is  made  poisonous 
even  by  the  work  itself.  It  is  a  duty  of  employers  to  take  such 
precautions  as  will  preserve  their  workpeople  not  only  from  sudden 
accidents,  but  from  a  slow  death.  As  the  robust  health  of  work¬ 
people  is  a  matter  of  great  importance  for  society,  the  public 
power  can  make  such  legal  regulations  as  will  secure  it. 

4.  A  division  of  labour.  Children  who  work  in  play  divide 
the  labour  among  them,  that  is,  they  assign  a  task  to  each  one, 
so  that  the  work  may  be  well  done.  This  shows  that  the  efficacy 
of  a  division  of  labour  in  obtaining  a  more  abundant  and  perfect 
produce  is  dictated  by  nature  itself.  A  consciousness  of  the 
limits  of  one's  power  suggests  that,  when  mind  and  hand  are 
assiduously  applied  to  the  making  of  one  single  article,  they  acquire 
a  technical  skill  that  is  of  admirable  service  in  expediting  and 
perfecting  the  operation.  A  division  of  labour  has  always  been 
practised  among  workingmen.  It  increases  with  the  increase 
of  industries.  Who  has  not  heard  that  it  takes  eighteen  men 
to  make  a  pin  ?  The  division  of  labour  also  presents  great 
social  advantages  :  it  creates  in  society  a  great  variety  of  occupa¬ 
tions,  among  which  each  person  can  choose  that  for  which  he 
feels  himself  born,  and  practise  it  with  skill  and  pleasure.! 

5.  Machinery.  Every  contrivance  of  which  man  avails  himself 

*  It  has  been  calculated  that  one-fourth  the  human  race  die  before  six 
years  of  age,  half  before  sixteen,  and  that  only  one  person  in  100  reaches 
the  age  of  sixty-five. — Trans. 

t  It  would  be  a  blessing  if  someone,  with  sufficient  knowledge  and 
experience,  would  compile  a  little  book  describing  the  different  trades  and 
other  ordinary  employments  common  in  Ireland,  so  that  a  boy,  reading 
it,  would  be  able  to  form  a  good  judgment  on  what  occupation  would  be 
most  suitable  for  him.  We  have  seen  two  such  works  in  the  German 
language. — Trans. 


LIMITS  OF  LABOUR 


133 


in  performing  work  may  be  called  a  machine,  but  common  use, 
as  well  as  economic  language,  keeps  this  name  for  a  complex 
mechanism  that  acts,  rather  by  being  guided  by  man  than  in 
aiding  him.  A  machine  presents  the  advantage  of  a  notable 
decrease  in  the  expenses  of  production,  and,  therefore,  of  the 
price  at  which  products  can  be  sold.  This  results  from  two 
causes.  First,  a  saving  of  the  workman's  hand  :  a  machine 
can  do  as  much  as  several  or  even  many  men.  Secondly,  speed  : 
there  is  little  proportion  between  the  amount  of  work  done  by 
a  man -and  that  by  a  machine  in  the  same  time.* 

The  things  produced  by  machines  offer  ground  for  a  classifica¬ 
tion  of  them.  Some  machines  are  useful  for  production  in  the 
sense  explained  :  they  do  quickly  what  man  would  require  much 
time  to  do.  Others  do  what  man  absolutely  could  not  do  :  for 
example,  the  photographic  machine,  or  camera.8 


Section  VI. — Limits  of  Labour. 

In  the  materialistic  ideas  of  man  as  a  machine  and  labour  as 
an  article  of  merchandise  the  question  whether  labour  ought 
to  have  any  limits  beyond  those  imposed  by  a  want  of  strength 
or  the  convenience  of  the  market  is  idle,  not  to  say  absurd.  With 
us  the  workman  is  not  a  machine,  but  a  rational  creature,  for 
whom  labour  ought  to  be  the  means  of  attaining  very  superior 
goods.  He  therefore  requires — 

1.  Rest  on  festive  days.  That  man  cannot  labour  assiduously 
all  the  days  of  the  week  is  shown  by  physiological  and  historical 
facts.  That  a  day  of  rest  for  one  and  all  should  be  Sunday 
is  shown  by  reasons  from  the  moral  and  the  religious  order,  which 
prove  that  the  workman  should  rest  even  on  other  days,  according 
to  laws  emanating  from  religious  authority. 

2.  Rest  at  night.  Nature  has  many  ways  of  manifesting  its 
laws.  The  dark  curtain  that  is  drawn  at  the  close  of  a  bright 
day,  and  the  weariness  that  oppresses  the  limbs,  and  the  silence 
that  becomes  so  deep  and  solemn  on  all  sides,  tell  clearly  that 
night  was  destined  for  the  repose  of  man.  Why  should  economic 
reasons  have  power  to  subvert  the  ordinances  of  nature  ? 

3.  A  just  arrangement  of  the  hours  of  labour.  It  is  known  that 
the  workman  cannot  give  to  labour  all  that  time  which  is  not 
required  for  sleep.  He  must  take  his  meals  ;  he  must  have  some 
honest  recreation ;  he  must  give  a  thought  to  the  care  of  his 

*  It  is  said  that  by  machinery  coal  can  be  put  into  ships  at  the  rate  of 
400  tons  an  hour  ;  that  a  stone-crusher  does  the  work  of  600  men ;  and 
that  a  steam-shovel  can  do  as  much  work  in  eight  minutes  as  a  hand-shovel 
in  ten  hours.  As  a  rule,  machinery  has  not  lessened,  but  greatly  increased, 
employment.  Provision,  however,  should  be  made  for  men  thrown  out  of 
work  during  the  period  of  transition. — Trans. 


134  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


family.  Even  physically,  he  could  not  continue  in  daily  labour, 
say  of  twelve  hours.  There  is  need,  therefore,  to  limit  the  time 
of  labour,  and  not  to  leave  it  in  the  hands  of  masters.* 

But  how  many  hours  of  labour  ought  there  to  be  in  the  day  ? 
The  socialists  are  thrown  into  a  pleurisy  by  eight  hours,  as  every¬ 
body  knows.  These  men,  with  a  view  to  make  an  impression 
on  the  multitude  and  to  gain  a  point  for  themselves,  do  not  care 
for  logic  or  facts,  but  indulge  in  assertions  that  absolutely  cannot 
stand.  How  then,  in  such  a  case,  is  a  proper  measure  to  be 
assigned  ? 

We  know  that  there  are  light  labours,  heavy  ones,  and  very 
heavy  ones.  To  subject  the  workmen  of  such  different  occupa¬ 
tions  to  one  uniform  measure  would  be  to  commit  the  grossest 
injustice  under  the  plea  of  the  most  scrupulous  justice.  We 
also  know  that  a  labour,  light  for  one  person,  may  be  very  heavy 
for  another. 

It  is  proper,  therefore,  to  acknowledge  the  impossibility  of 
having  one  fixed  rule,  and  also  the  need  of  seeking  aid  from 
laws  and  from  the  societies  of  workingmen.  Let  the  lawTs  deter¬ 
mine  the  maximum  duration  of  a  day’s  work.  This  can  and 
should  be  done  :  there  is  a  certain  limit  beyond  which  neither 
human  strength  nor  moral  order  permits  men  to  go.  And  this 
is  the  task  of  the  public  power. 

If  this  task  is  abandoned  to  the  compacts  that  are  made  between 
masters  and  workmen,  it  will  fall  into  the  waves  of  free  competi¬ 
tion,  and  be  engulfed  in  them,  nearly  always  with  loss  to  the 
weaker  party.  The  Pope  assigns  this  duty  to  the  State  when  he 
says:  '*  If  masters  oppress  the  working  classes  with  unjust 
burdens,  or  degrade  them  by  conditions  repugnant  to  human 
personality  and  dignity  ;  if  they  injure  health  by  excessive  work, 
or  by  work  unsuited  to  sex  or  age  :  in  these  cases  it  is  evident  that 
the  force  and  authority  of  the  law  ought,  within  certain  limits, 
to  interfere.”  That  the  law  should  not  go  farther  is  proved  by 
the  impossibility  of  finding  a  just,  general  standard,  as  well  as 
by  the  function  assigned  to  the  State,  which,  according  to  Leo 
XIII.,  “  should  not  undertake  more  than  is  required  for  the 
remedy  of  the  evil  or  the  removal  of  the  danger.” 

However,  wxe  admit  that  even  when  the  State  has  done  its 
part,  all  danger  of  abuse  is  not  quite  taken  away.  This  is  what 
we  have  wished  to  be  the  task  of  Trade  or  Class  Unions  :  to  which 
if  the  State  will  grant  a  legal  personality,  it  will  have  fully  dis¬ 
charged  its  duty.  It  is  only  mediately  that  the  State  can  come 
to  a  practical  determination  with  regard  to  each  kind  of  labour — 
that  is,  by  means  of  assistance  from  societies  of  workingmen. 

*  Some  people  maintain  that  the  man  who  works  eight  hours  a  day  can 
actually  do  more  than  the  man  who  works  ten.  The  latter  comes  home  at 
night  quite  tired  out. 

Every  good  master  will  have  a  careful  eye  to  the  physical,  intellectual,  and 
moral  welfare  of  all  persons  in  his  employment. — Trans. \ 


LIMITS  OF  LABOUB 


135 


On  this  point,  the  Encyclical  speaks  with  admirable  clearness : — 
“It  is  neither  just  nor  humane  to  require  of  a  man  so  much 
labour  as  stupefies  his  mind  or  enfeebles  his  body.  The  activity 
of  man,  like  all  his  nature,  has  limits  beyond  which  it  cannot 
go.  His  strength  is  improved  by  exercise  and  use,  provided, 
however,  that  from  time  to  time  he  has  an  intermission  for  rest. 
The  daily  work,  therefore,  should  not  be  prolonged  beyond  the 
hours  that  strength  permits.  How  long  the  intervals  of  rest 
ought  to  be,  must  be  judged  of  by  the  nature  of  the  work,  by 
circumstances  of  time  and  place,  and  by  the  health  of  the  work¬ 
men.  Those,  for  example,  who  work  fin  quarries,  or  in  mines  of 
iron,  copper,  &c.,  far  underground,  should  have  shorter  hours 
in  proportion  as  their  labour  is  more  trying  on  health.  Begard 
should  also  be  had  to  the  season  of  the  year,  because  it  not  un- 
frequently  happens  that  labour  easily  borne  at  one  time  is  at 
another  intolerable  or  very  difficult.”  {Rerum  novarum.) 

For  the  rest,  this  point  is  complex  enough  at  the  present  day, 
and  may  be  more  so  to-morrow  or  some  other  time.  It  is 
proper,  if  we  would  arrive  at  a  solution  of  it  to  keep  an  eye  to  the 
relation  that  it  may  have  with  the  material  and  moral  welfare 
of  the  individual,  and  with  the  interests  of  society  in  general. 

In  farming,  for  example,  circumstances  may  occur  in  which 
a  prolongation  of  the  hours  of  labour  beyond  the  maximum 
limit  would  be  a  duty.  This  is  when  the  crops  require  to  be 
cared  for  or  gathered  in,  lest  the  severity  of  the  weather  should 
ruin  them.  The  occasion  is  urgent,  and  the  work  must  be  finished 
in  a  few  days.  In  calamities  of  this  kind,  who  does  not  see  that 
the  common  good  permits  country  people  to  spend  some  extra 
energy  for  a  few  days,  precisely  because,  being  only  for  a  few  days, 
it  cannot  seriously  injure  health  ?  Without  doubt,  in  such  a 
case,  an  increase  of  wages  is  to  be  allowed,  so  that  it  may  be 
possible  for  the  labourer  to  have  a  sustenance  proportioned  to 
his  greater  need.  But  even  this  matter  should  be  under  certain 
just  rules,  lest  otherwise,  through  the  excessive  greed  of  an 
employer,  a  labourer  should  agree  to  a  time-table  truly  inhuman, 
and  be  an  impoverisher  of  himself,  contrary  to  the  dignity  of 
human  nature.  The  Class  Unions  have  here,  as  is  evident,  a  great 
deal  to  amend. 

4.  No  unfair  opposition.  The  workman,  in  the  struggle  that 
he  has  to  maintain  with  the  employer,  finds  to-day  that,  besides 
society-men,  he  has  other  competitors — women  and  children. 
Monsignor  Bandi  speaks  on  the  subject  thus  : — 

“  The  devouring  competition  entered  homes.  It  found  there 
some  hands  unemployed — that  is  to  say,  not  producing.  They  were 
the  two  hands  of  the  good  wife,  which  took  care  of  everything 
in  the  house,  and  which  she  clapped  with  joy  on  the  return  of  the 
weary  workman.  There  were  also  the  tender  hands  of  little 
boys  and  little  maidens,  who,  like  so  many  angels,  filled  the  house 
wfith  gladness.  What  are  all  those  hands  to  do  ?  Let  them 


136  THE  ELEMENTS  OE  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


produce,  let  them  produce  :  a  workman  can  do  very  well  without 
so  much  festivity  and  poetry,  provided  he  lives  ! 

“  And  so  crowds  of  women  and  children  bade  farewell  to  their 
domestic  peace,  and  took  the  road  to  the  factory.  They  worked 
by  day  and  they  worked  by  night.  They  worked  all  the  day 
long,  and  even  on  festival  days.  The  modest  little  girl  and  the 
rude  little  boy  worked  together.  They  worked  without  guardian¬ 
ship,  and  without  rule,  except  to  work  quickly  and  well ;  and 
for  so  much  work  they  received  very,  very  little  reward.”  ( Pastoral 
Letter,  March  6,  1901.) 

Now,  it  is  easy  to  prove  that  this  state  of  affairs  is  altogether 
unnatural.  Woman  has  a  mission  eminently  domestic.  Her 
physical  constitution  and  her  duties  as  a  wife  and  a  mother 
do  not  permit  her  to  engage  in  the  work  of  a  factory.  Schuler 
informs  us  that  in  Switzerland  the  mortality  among  working 
women  is  27  per  cent,  greater  than  that  among  working  men. 
The  statistics  of  military  recruits  say  that  among  the  sons  of 
working  women  the  percentage  of  mortality  rises  higher  than 
among  others.  According  to  the  Pope  :  “  Some  kinds  of  work 
do  not  suit  woman,  born  for  domestic  duties,  which  are  a  great 
protection  for  her  modesty,  and  have  a  natural  correspondence 
with  the  education  of  children  and  the  wellbeing  of  the  family.” 
(Rerum  novarum.) 

With  regard  to  the  injuries  that  work  does  to  children,  wTe 
might  easily  make  a  long  discourse.  Physical  injuries,  because 
their  tender  limbs,  which  require  to  grow,  are  oppressed  by  the 
weight  of  work :  this  may  lead  to  lameness,  or  some  other 
deformity  that  will  last  for  a  lifetime.  Intellectual  and  moral 
injuries,  because  work  does  not  allow  them  time  to  adorn  their 
minds  with  knowledge  and  to  mould  their  hearts  to  virtue.  Amid 
the  jesting,  the  licentiousness  of  an  ill-ordered  workshop,  it  may 
easily  be  imagined  what  nobility  of  sentiment,  what  correctness 
of  judgment,  they  can  acquire. 

Let  us  again  quote  the  encyclical  :  “As  for  children,  great 
care  should  be  taken  not  to  let  them  enter  a  workshop  before  their 
physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  powers  are  sufficiently  developed. 
F or  as  the  buds  of  spring  are  destroyed  by  rough  weather,  so  those 
powers  beginning  to  appear  in  childhood  are  destroyed  by  prema¬ 
ture  excitement,  and  thus  the  education  of  children  becomes 
impossible.” 

Let  no  one,  therefore,  be  surprised  if  Catholics  from  an  early 
date  raised  their  voices  against  the  labour  of  women  and  children. 
Among  the  first  was  the  celebrated  Bishop  of  Mayence,  Monsignor 
Ketteler,*  who,  elected  to  the  Parliament  of  Berlin,  proposed  the 

*  Some  forty  years  ago,  this  great  far-seeing  Bishop  was  an  enthusiastic 
advocate  for  founding  societies,  unions,  guilds,  &c.,  but  always  on  Christian 
principles,  as  the  certain  means  of  elevating  their  members  intellectually 
and  morally.  He  met  with  many  obstacles.  Prince  Bismarck  was  a  bitter 
enemy  of  all  legislation  in  favour  of  the  working  classes  :  he  would  hear  of 


LIMITS  OF  LABOUR 


137 


five  following  points  in  his  social  programme  : — (i.)  The  prohibi¬ 
tion  of  work  to  children  under  fourteen  years  of  age  ;  (ii.)  the 
prohibition  of  factory  work  to  married  women ;  (iii.)  an  obligation 
of  rest  on  festal  days :  (iv.)  a  maximum  of  ten  hours  for  the 
day's  work ;  and  (v.)  the  appointment  of  Inspectors  for  work. 
The  “  Centre  ”  warmly  supported  this  programme  and  carried 
it  triumphantly  against  all  parties,  including  the  socialists,  who, 
during  many  years,  had  opposed  such  bills  as  were  proposed 
by  the  “  Centre  ”  for  the  protection  of  the  lower  classes. 


no  law  to  limit  their  hours  of  work  by  day  or  night,  to  secure  days  of  rest 
for  them,  &c.  If  they  wished  to  improve  their  condition,  they  should 
rely  on  self-help  alone.  His  so-called  Culturkampf  (struggle  for  civilisation) 
was  in  reality  a  cruel  persecution  of  the  Church.  It  did  great  evil  during 
the  ten  years  of  its  course.  History,  however,  shows  that  right  ideas  cannot 
be  put  down,  and  that  the  attempt  to  crush  them  is  soon  discovered  to  be 
unjust. 

The  year  1890  brought  a  great  change  for  the  better,  and  Bismarck  had 
to  quit  Berlin.  The  Emperor  William  II.  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the 
movement  in  favour  of  labour,  and  invited  all  the  States  of  Europe  to  an 
International  Conference  in  Berlin  on  the  protection  of  working  people. 
He  wrote  personally  to  the  Pope,  in  order  to  gain  his  support  for  the  Con¬ 
ference.  The  Pope,  in  compliance,  wrote  to  the  Archbishop  of  Cologne. 
Then  followed  a  general  pastoral  letter  from  the  Bishops  of  Germany,  express¬ 
ing  their  warm  sympathy  with  the  cause.  In  1891  Pope  Leo  XIII.  came 
out  with  his  grand  encyclical  on  the  labour  question,  Rerum  novarum.  It  is 
full  of  philosophy  as  well  as  religion,  and  is  justly  regarded  as  a  most 
valuable  document  from  the  highest  authority.  Its  principles  will  hold 
good  till  the  end  of  the  world. 

Some  of  the  most  important  societies  now  in  Germany  are  the  Catholic 
Workmen’s  Society  ( Katholischer  Arbeiterverein),  the  People’s  Society 
( Volksverein ),  the  Workwomen’s  Society,  the  Journeymen’s  Society,  the 
Young  Men’s  Society,  the  Boys’  Society.  When  the  number  of  workmen 
in  a  locality  is  not  sufficient  to  form  an  Arbeiterverein,  the  Volksverein,  in 
which  all  classes  can  join,  suits  very  well.  The  head-quarters  of  these 
societies  are  at  Munich-Gladbach,  a  large  manufacturing  town  about  twelve 
miles  west  of  Dusseldort. 

The  Workmen’s  Societies  adopt  every  imaginable  means  of  improving 
their  condition.  They  feel  that  as  men  and  as  Christians  they  are  entitled 
to  a  fair  share  in  the  fruits  of  civilisation.  They  have  halls,  bureaus,  reading- 
rooms,  libraries,  lectures,  discussions,  bands,  concerts,  newspapers,  pam¬ 
phlets,  &c.  They  make  Retreats  ;  they  have  days  of  General  Communion  ; 
they  take  part  in  religious  processions.  They  offer  great  protection  for  young 
men  coming  into  town  from  the  country.  Thus  they  are  a  powerful  bulwark 
against  Socialism,  paralysing  in  many  respects  its  efforts.  They  give  special 
courses  of  instruction  to  trade  unions  within  their  own  ranks,  mindful  of 
the  advice  of  their  great  champion  Mr.  Windthorst :  “  Catholics,  whatever 
their  calling,  ought  to  do  everything  in  the  best  way.”  At  the  same  time 
all  their  conduct  is  regulated  by  the  words  of  the  Gospel :  “  What  doth  it 
profit  a  man  if  he  gain  the  whole  world,  and  suffer  the  loss  of  his  own  soul  ?  ” 

The  President  of  every  Workmen’s  Society  is  a  Priest  appointed  by  the 
Bishop  of  the  diocese.  A  Conference  is  held  from  time  to  time  by  the 
Presidents,  or  a  Congress  by  the  Delegates  of  the  workmen.  Some  of  these 
Delegates  have  even  been  admitted  to  an  interview  with  the  Lord  Chancellor. 
In  1906  the  Alliance  of  Catholic  Workmen’s  Societies  of  West  Germany 
(about  a  dozen  dioceses)  counted  656  Societies  and  114,613  members  ;  the 
Alliance  of  South  Germany  853  Societies,  and  105,271  members  ;  and  the 
Alliance  of  Berlin  750  Societies  and  about  100,000  members. — Trans. 


138  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


In  a  point  of  paramount  importance  for  society  at  large,  in¬ 
volving  the  most  sacred  rights,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  State 
ought  to  interfere  with  wise  precautions. 

5.  An  occasional  rest  during  the  time  of  work.  Besides  the 
time  given  to  sleep  and  to  meals,  the  workman  ought  to  have 
a  while,  varied  according  to  the  season  and  the  work,  for  honest 
rest.  It  is  a  claim  of  nature.  Trade  and  other  such  Unions 
will  do  well  if,  for  the  advantage  both  of  workers  and  masters, 
they  draw  up  a  suitable  time-table.  This  is  a  basis  recommended 
by  the  Pope  :  “Asa  general  rule,  it  may  be  said  that  the  amount 
of  rest  necessary  for  a  workman  ought  to  be  in  proportion  to  the 
amount  of  strength  consumed  by  labour  ;  for  the  waste  of  strength 
ought  to  be  repaired  by  rest." 

Nor  is  it  necessary  that  the  workman  should  expressly  stipulate 
for  his  rest :  nature  has  made  the  bargain  for  him.  “  In  every 
agreement  that  is  made  between  masters  and  workpeople,  it  is 
always  a  condition,  expressed  or  understood,  that  there  should 
be  proper  rest  for  soul  and  body.  To  agree  otherwise  would 
be  contrary  to  morals  ;  for  it  is  never  lawful  to  promise  a  neglect 
of  the  duties  that  man  owes  to  God  and  to  himself."  ( Rerum 
novarum.) 


Section  VII. — Labour  oe  Women  and  Children. 

A  question  may  here  arise  :  Will  it,  therefore,  be  said  that 
women,  and  also  children,  are  to  have  no  labour  ? 

No  one  intends  to  maintain  such  a  doctrine.  If  a  general 
condemnation  falls  on  the  labour  of  women  and  children,  it  is 
because  an  objectionable  state  of  affairs  is  only  too  common. 
For  the  rest,  if  due  reserve  is  secured  for  the  maiden,  the  wife, 
the  mother,  and  if  they  are  allowed  to  fulfil  their  respective  duties, 
every  motive  urges  that  they  should  apply  themselves  to  some 
work  for  the  prosperity  of  the  family.  The  same  reasoning 
holds  good  for  children,  who,  in  proportion  to  their  strength, 
ought  to  begin  to  work,  and  to  lend  a  hand  in  carrying  the  burdens 
of  the  family.  Indeed  the  Pope,  with  great  propriety,  speaks 
thus  : — “  A  work  suitable  for  a  strong  grown  man  cannot  reason¬ 
ably  be  required  from  a  woman  or  a  child."  Therefore  there  is 
work  suitable  for  woman  and  child,  to  which  they  may  well 
submit.  Bather,  they  ought  to  do  so,  because  the  family  is  an 
organism,  for  whose  wellbeing  all  its  members  should,  according 
to  their  strength,  combine. 

On  this  subject  it  is  to  be  observed  that  factories  have  taken 
out  of  the  hands  of  woman  many  occupations  in  which  she 
formerly  engaged  under  the  shade  of  the  domestic  roof.  Spinning, 
weaving,  knitting,  &c.,  afforded  her  employment,  without  leaving 
her  house,  her  children,  her  domestic  affairs.  Now  she  has  no 
longer  such  work :  how  could  she  compete  with  a  machine  or  a 


LEGAL  GUARDIANSHIP  OF  LABOUR 


139 


mill  ?  Treating  of  family  industries,  Father  Viguerou,  in  an 
article  that  appeared  in  the  Social  Reform  of  Dec.  1,  1901,  main¬ 
tained  the  necessity  of  establishing  syndicates  of  women  working 
at  home.  The  Trade  Unions  will  be  able  to  solve,  at  least  in 
part,  this  problem. 


Section  YIII. — Legal  Guardianship  of  Labour. 

In  the  Rerum  novarum,  Leo  XIII.,  when  speaking  of  labour, 
deals  minutely  with  some  points  to  whi'ch  social  legislation  ought 
to  extend.  They  are  (i.)  to  make  rest  on  festal  days  obligatory  ; 
(ii.)  to  guard  the  moral  interests  of  workpeople ;  (iii.)  to  fix  the 
maximum  length  of  a  day's  w^ork ;  (iv.)  to  fix  the  minimum 
amount  of  wages ;  (v.)  to  protect  women  and  children  from 

excessive  labour ;  (vi.)  to  defend  Trade  Unions,  so  that  when  it 
is  not  justice  for  the  State  to  extend  its  action  in  any  case,  they 
may  interfere  with  practical  decisions.  As  regards  this  last 
purpose,  the  Catholic  Social  Congress  of  Genoa  did  not  hesitate 
to  assert  that,  in  an  extreme  case  of  general  abuses,  either  on  the 
part  of  employers  or  on  the  part  of  workpeople,  if  councils  of 
conciliation  and  arbitration  are  unable  to  prevent  strikes  or 
wrongs,  it  would  then  be  well  that  the  State  should  interfere, 
either  by  transforming  those  councils  into  real  tribunals  with 
public  authority,  or  by  establishing  a  suitable  tribunal  that 
would  hear  the  claims  of  both  parties,  and  apply  in  each  case  the 
moral  law  of  justice,  for  which  the  State  ought  to  provide  in  its 
code.  Another  point  (vii.)  is  to  have  a  Minister  of  Labour,  who, 
by  means  of  carefully  prepared  statistics,  would  see  not  only  the 
state  of  agriculture,  manufactures,  industries  in  general,  but  also 
the  condition  of  the  working  classes,  the  lives  that  they  lead, 
the  difficulties  that  they  have  to  contend  with,  &c.9 

The  justice  of  such  arrangements  must  be  admitted  by  every¬ 
body.  Why  in  the  world  should  the  law,  which  is  so  zealous 
in  protecting  the  rights  of  property,  leave  to  the  mercy  of  the 
strongest  the  rights  of  labour  ?  Is  not  labour  one  of  the  chief 
levers  by  which  humanity  is  maintained  ?  “  It  is  just  that  the 

Government  should  take  an  interest  in  the  workingman,  so  that 
he  may  have  some  share  in  that  abundance  which  he  produces — 
that,  being  properly  housed,  clothed,  and  fed,  he  may  be  able 
to  lead  a  life  less  painful.  Let  it  therefore  favour  as  much  as 
possible  whatever  can  improve  his  condition.  It  may  be  assured 
that  this  care,  far  from  injuring  anyone,  will  be  a  benefit  for  all. 
Because  it  could  not  be  for  the  good  of  the  commonwealth  that 
those  persons  from  whom  such  important  advantages  are  derived 
should  be  sunk  in  misery."  ( Rerum  novarum.) 

Catholics  have  at  present  a  strong  and  convincing  literature 
that  aims  at  procuring  legislation  on  labour.  The  studies  of 
Yogelsang  and  Ratsinger,  the  speeches  of  De  Mun  and  Lieber, 


140  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


as  well  as  the  powerful  appeals  of  Cardinal  Manning,  are  a  proof 
of  it.  Everyone  knows  how  explicitly  and  forcibly,  in  the 
Congress  of  Zurich,  the  views  of  Catholics  were  declared  in  favour 
of  a  legal  protection  for  labour. 

Italy,  we  regret  to  say,  is  still  far  behind  in  these  matters. 
Switzerland.  Austria.  Germanv.  France,  and  Russia  have  resmla- 

.  1  7  O 

tions  not  yet  so  much  as  honoured  with  a  discussion  by  our 
legislators.  We  have  the  law  of  1893,  which  forbids  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  children  in  a  wandering  peddling  traffic.  We  have  the 
law  of  1886,  which  permits  (L)  the  work  of  children  in  lighter 
employments  at  nine  years  of  age,  and  in  mines,  even  far  under¬ 
ground,  at  ten :  (ii.)  only  eight  hours  of  work  between  nine  and 
ten  years  of  age ;  (iii.)  no  dangerous  or  unhealthy  work  up  to 
fifteen  years :  (iv.)  no  ordinary  night  work  to  children  under 
twelve,  but  in  exceptional  cases  it  may  occur  for  six  hours  : 
(v.)  from  twelve  to  fifteen  years,  night  work  only  for  six  hours.  In 
fine,  we  have  the  law  of  1898  on  accidents,  and  on  the  institution 
of  a  "  National  Providence  Chest/5 

To  these  a  useful  addition  has  been  made  by  a  recent  law 
(June  19,  1902),  which  raises  to  twelve  the  minimum  age  for 
the  employment  of  children  in  factories,  and  in  works  (not  under¬ 
ground)  connected  with  caves,  mines,  and  galleries.  It  forbids 
night  work  to  boys  under  fifteen  years,  and  to  all  girls  of  minor 
age. 

There  is  the  sum  total.  Free  to  women  anv  work,  anv  contract. 

«  '  » 

any  time  table,  any  wages,  any  condition  !  For  the  victims  of 
labour  the  law  does  not  move  a  finger.10  We  Catholics  are, 
therefore,  right  when  we  call  not  only  for  an  exact  application 
of  the  few  regulations  that  exist  on  labour,  but  for  a  true  renova¬ 
tion,  whatever  that  costs,  of  the  laws  themselves.11 


Section  IX. — International  Legislation  on  Labour. 

Labour  is  such  a  fact  that  it  has  a  connection  with  all  the  other 
facts  of  social  economic  life  :  and  its  good  or  ill  fate  often  depends 
on  a  cause,  or  a  variety  of  causes,  existing  far  from  it. 

He  who  considers  that  the  wases  of  labour  are  connected  with 
the  prosperity  of  the  master,  that  the  master  is  influenced  by  the 
abundance  of  the  produce,  that  the  value  of  the  produce  depends 
on  the  largeness  of  the  market — he  who  considers  that,  so  far 
as  laws  go,  competition  can  never  be  wholly  abolished,  but, 
by  the  present  means  of  transport,  may,  like  a  great  ocean, 
rush  from  country  to  country,  from  kingdom  to  kingdom — 
sees  at  once  the  lines  of  legal  protection  for  labour  vanish 
away  over  the  wide  world.  Grant  that  one  or  two  States  make 
regulations  in  favour  of  the  working  classes  :  their  efficacy 
may  be  little  or  nothing  through  the  competition  of  a  neigh- 
bourinr  State. 


INTERNATIONAL  LEGISLATION  ON  LABOUR  141 


The  protecting  State  may  injure  itself  and  its  own  industries. 
In  point  of  fact,  if  it  lessens  the  length  of  a  day's  work,  which  in 
an  adjacent  State  is  twelve  or  fourteen  hours,  how  can  its 
manufacturers  compete  with  those  on  its  borders  ? 

A  movement  for  international  guardianship  was  begun  in 
1857  by  Daniel  Legrand,  of  Alsace,  who  begged  of  all  the 
governments  in  Europe  to  prevent  the  employment  of 
children  under  twelve  years,  and  also  to  forbid  night  work 
and  Sunday  work.  Nothing  came  of  it.  But  an  idea  so  just 
could  not  die.  In  1862  we  find  it  repeated  by  the  found¬ 
ation  of  the  “  International  Association  of  Working  Men  "  ;  in 
1890  by  the  Berlin  Conference  ;  in  1897  by  the  Zurich  Congress  ; 
and  in  1900  by  the  Paris  Congress.  All  civil  governments 
ought  accordingly  to  agree,  as  far  as  possible,  on  one  general 
basis  of  labour  legislation. 

It  is  well  known  with  what  wisdom  and  eloquence  the  great 
Christian  democrat,  Gaspar  Decurtius,  maintained  his  thesis  at 
the  Zurich  Congress.  It  was  after  that  event  that  he  received 
a  splendid  Brief  from  the  Holy  Father,  confirming  the  reasonable¬ 
ness  of  his  views.  Thus  does  the  Pope  speak  : — “  Many  argu¬ 
ments  are  not  needed  to  prove  the  reasonableness  of  such  pro¬ 
vision.  For  if  there  is  any  grave  and  laudable  reason  why  the 
public  authority  should  interpose  with  legislation  in  defence  of 
the  interests  of  the  working  classes,  there  certainly  cannot  appear 
any  one  more  grave  or  laudable  than  that  of  protecting  the 
weakness  of  children  and  women,  from  whom  the  generation  to 
succeed  the  present  will  take  its  rise,  and  on  whom  the  greatness 
and  power  of  a  people  depend.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  evident 
to  all  how  imperfect  would  be  the  protection  given  to  labour  by 
different  laws  passed  by  different  States.  Because,  as  it  often 
happens  that  various  articles  of  merchandise,  coming  from  a 
distant  region,  meet  in  one  place,  to  be  sold  there,  the  rules 
for  the  labour  of  workmen  in  one  place  might  turn  to  the 
advantage  of  industry  among  one  people  and  to  the  injury  of 
industry  among  another." 

Hence  it  is  manifest  how  praiseworthy  is  the  “  International 
Association  for  the  Protection  of  Labour,"  to  whose  interests 
our  excellent  Toniolo  has  consecrated  so  much  of  his  large  mind 
and  generous  heart.12 


Themes. — Freedom  of  labour  :  how  it  should  be  understood,  and  in 
what  sense  it  is  a  right  of  every  individual — If  laws  on  labour,  imposing  a 
discipline  with  proper  titles,  violate  the  freedom  of  individuals — To  place 
the  working  classes  in  a  state  of  comparative  comfort  is  not  only  a  social 
duty,  but  an  advantage — In  setting  a  value  on  labour,  some  err  by  defect 
and  others  by  excess :  what  are  the  defects  and  the  excesses  to  be 
avoided  ? — The  division  of  labour  increases  with  the  progress  of  civilisation. 


142  THE  ELEMENTS  OE  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


CHAPTER  Y. 

CAPITAL  IS  REQUIRED  AS  WELL  AS  LABOUR. 

Section  I. — Utility  of  Capital. 

Nature  and  man  are  the  great  sources  of  production :  nature 
with  all  its  riches,  and  man  with  his  energy.  But  these  two 
coefficients  would  give  very  little  result  if  a  third,  which  is  of 
immense  efficacy  in  production,  were  not  joined  with  them. 
The  countryman  alone  with  the  field  near  his  door,  the  fisherman 
alone  with  the  fish  in  the  neighbouring  water,  would  be  of  small 
account.  Something  more  is  needed  :  for  the  former,  manure 
or  seed  ;  for  the  latter,  a  hook  or  a  net.  This  something,  which 
varies  for  every  kind  of  labour,  and  is  not  always  the  same 
for  the  same  labour,  is  called  “  capital.” 


Section  II. — Different  Views  of  Capital. 

In  explaining  the  idea  of  capital,  there  is  not  among  economists 
that  harmony  which  would  be  desirable.  Let  us  set  forth  the 
chief  opinions  held  about  it. 

Antoine,  who  asserts  that  he  has  first-class  authors  on  his  side 
to  show  why  an  economic  good  may  be  called  capital,  will  have  it 
to  be  a  thing  of  some  importance.  And,  therefore,  he  defines 
capital  as  “an  economic  good  of  a  certain  importance.”  He 
afterwards  says  that  capital  of  enjoyment  is  destined  for  con¬ 
sumption,  and  capital  of  production  for  the  formation  of  a  product. 
Others  specify  capital  from  its  employment  in  productive  opera¬ 
tions,  and  therefore  define  it  as  “  any  economic  good  applied 
to  production.”  Others  again  admit  the  specification  of  this 
second  opinion,  but  make  an  addition  to  it— that  capital  is  an 
economic  good  which  is  already  the  effect  of  a  productive  opera¬ 
tion.  With  Cossa  they  define  capital  as  “  any  product  employed 
in  production.” 

We  must  keep  in  mind  these  different  modes  of  regarding 
capital,  when  we  read  or  hear  discussions  on  the  matter,  so  as 
not  to  become  victims  of  equivocation.  As  for  what  we  shall 
say  in  this  chapter  about  capital,  we  premise  that  we  adopt  the 
third  opinion,  which  is  that  of  Cossa.  The  other  two  concepts 
of  capital  disturb  a  little,  we  imagine,  that  order  which  helps  so 
much  in  a  scientific  treatise. 

It  remains,  therefore,  clear  that  by  capital  we  are  not  forthwith 
to  understand  only  money.  Money  cannot  of  itself  be  called 
capital,  because,  as  money,  it  is  incapable  of  entering  as  a  factor 
into  any  productive  operation.  Money  is  capital  in  so  far  as  it  is 
easily  convertible  into  any  product  whatever,  capable  of  being 


THE  THEORY  OF  MARX  ON  CAPITAL 


143 


employed  in  successive  productions.  The  meaning  of  capital  is 
now  obvious. 

When  a  produce  is  abundant,  the  employment  of  it  varies 
according  to  views  and  tastes.  One  man  makes  a  reserve  fund 
from  it  for  future  events  ;  another  devotes  it  all  to  consumption, 
in  order  to  procure  himself  pleasures ;  another  applies  it  to  a 
new  production ;  while  a  fourth  divides  it  conveniently  for  the 
three  destinations  aforesaid. 

You  will  not,  therefore,  be  a  simpleton  if  you  give  the  name 
of  capital  to  an  object.  The  same  object,  rendering  materially 
the  same  service,  may  be  capital  or  not.  For  example,  a  house 
that  serves  you  as  a  dwelling  is  not  capital ;  the  same  house 
used  as  a  factory  is  capital.  The  horse  on  which  you  ride  for 
diversion  is  not  capital ;  but,  if  you  are  a  medical  man,  the  same 
horse,  which  takes  you  on  your  visits,  is  capital. 

It  is  very  important  to  distinguish  between  fixed  and  circulating 
capital.  If  we  take  the  examples  of  a  mill  and  seed,  you  under¬ 
stand  at  once  how  the  former  is  such  a  kind  of  capital  that  it  is 
worn  by  use,  but  it  lasts  for  many  productions  :  it  is  fixed  capital. 
The  seed  is  circulating  capital,  because  it  serves  only  once  :  other 
productions  will  require  new  seed.  Even  here  the  same  object 
may  be  either  fixed  or  circulating  capital,  according  to  its  destina¬ 
tion.  The  ox  that  serves  for  labour  is  fixed  capital ;  the  ox  that 
is  fed  for  the  shambles  is  circulating  capital. 

Section  III. — The  Capitalist. 

He  who  is  possessed  of  some  capital  is  called  a  capitalist.  But 
as  there  is  a  common  meaning,  which  is  not  scientific,  given  to 
capital,  the  same  occurs  with  capitalist.  In  ordinary  language, 
a  capitalist  is  anyone  provided  with  means,  especially  money, 
and  in  good  quantity. 

We  cannot  separate  the  person  of  the  capitalist  from  capital, 
and  as  we  consider  that  capital  should  be  specified  from  its  employ¬ 
ment  in  production,  so  we  consider  that  the  capitalist  is  he  who 
employs  his  own  capital  directly  in  a  productive  work.  We 
have  said  directly ,  because  we  consider,  and  we  repeat  it,  that  the 
capitalist  is  truly  a  producer  by  his  capital  as  the  labourer  is 
by  his  labour ;  and  that  he  is,  therefore,  subject  to  changes  of 
prosperity  and  adversity,  not  only  during  the  productive  period, 
but  in  the  result  of  the  production.  He  who,  by  a  contract  or 
in  any  other  way,  rids  himself  of  this  eventuality,  or  throws  it 
on  the  shoulders  of  another,  may,  according  to  our  view,  be  a 
rich  man,  but  he  is  not  a  capitalist.  To  the  latter  we  attribute 
rights  that  we  deny  to  the  former. 

Section  IV. — The  Theory  of  Marx  on  Capital. 

From  his  theory  on  the  value  of  merchandise,  Karl  Marx 
derived  another,  no  less  famous,  on  capital.  The  value  of  an 


144  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


article  of  merchandise,  he  says,  is  nothing  but  the  labour  incor¬ 
porated  in  it :  to  buy  an  article  of  merchandise  is  to  pay  for 
the  labour  required  to  produce  it. 

What  then  is  labour  ?  An  article  of  merchandise,  says  Marx. 
And  what  is  its  value  ?  That  which  is  required  to  produce  it. 

Now,  to  produce  labour  there  are  physical  powers  required 
in  the  labourer,  which,  to  be  maintained,  have  need  of  material 
means.  Labour  is  therefore  paid  for  by  supplying  the  means 
that  preserve  the  strength  of  the  workman.  But  labour  is  a  special 
kind  of  merchandise — one  that  produces  not  only  what  is  necessary 
to  preserve  the  strength  of  the  workman,  but  much  more  :  it 
produces  a  surplus-value.  In  short,  every  product  contains  the 
value  of  labour,  that  is,  what  is  required  for  the  preservation 
of  the  strength  of  the  workman,  and  yet  more — that  is  to  say,  the 
surplus- value. 

Now,  what  follows  ?  That  when  a  capitalist  buys  the  labour 
of  a  workman,  he  pays  him  in  value,  but  not  in  surplus- value. 
He  pays  him  according  to  what  the  labourer  needs  to  live,  or  he 
pays  him  nourishment  in  the  wages  of  so  many  days,  and  the 
surplus- value  he  keeps  for  himself.  Accumulated  surplus- values 
form  capital,  which,  consequently,  is  a  theft  committed  to  the 
loss  of  the  labourer,  to  whom  the  surplus-value  as  well  as  the 
value  of  his  labour  ought  to  belong. 

Having  shown  in  a  previous  chapter  how  the  theory  of  Marx 
on  value  cannot  be  maintained — having  shown  what  part  nature, 
in  addition  to  labour,  has  in  production — we  now  hold  in  our 
hands  the  elements  of  proof  that  will  do  justice  also  to  the 
ingenious  theory  of  Marx  on  capital.13 


Section  V. — Productivity  of  Capital. 

The  question  that  we  have  discussed  with  regard  to  nature 
as  well  as  to  labour,  that  is,  if  they  have  each  a  share  in  the 
causality  of  produce,  applies  also  to  capital. 

What  then  is  to  be  said  of  it  ?  If  causality  were  a  thing  visible — 
if  that  mysterious  thread  which  binds  the  effect  to  the  cause 
could  be  cut,  knotted,  or  twisted  at  will — we  might  easily  show 
everyone  that  it  is  now  simple,  now  double,  now  triple  ;  and  that, 
when  it  is  triple,  one  of  the  threads  binds  to  capital  its  quota 
of  produce. 

But  that  thread  is  invisible,  and  causality  does  not  appear 
except  in  the  reality  of  causes  and  effects.  We  know,  however, 
that  when  we  admit  a  before  and  an  after,  and  the  after  evidently 
depends  on  the  before,  causality  is  there. 

Now,  is  it  true  that  if  to  labour  and  nature  we  join  the  power 
of  capital  in  production,  the  produce  is  greater  ?  Y  es,  it  is  true. 
There  is  therefore  a  before — capital.  There  is  an  after — a  greater 
amount  of  produce.  Here  we  have  the  relation  of  dependence  ; 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  CAPITAL 


145 


because  there  cannot  be  found  outside  of  capital  any  other  power 
that  could  be  the  cause  of  that  produce.  It  remains,  therefore, 
that  we  must  acknowledge  the  productivity  of  capital. 

Antoine  says  : — “  Capital  has  a  double  office  in  production, 
(i.)  As  every  production  requires  a  certain  time,  the  workman 
must  live  on  his  savings  during  it,  that  is  to  say,  with  capital, 
(ii.)  Labour  requires  assistance  from  the  forces  of  nature,  which 
man,  by  his  activity,  turns  into  useful  instruments.  Nowt, 
these  instruments  are  capital.  That  capital  thus  understood 
is  a  means  indispensable  for  production  and  for  an  increase  of 
economic  goods,  is  a  truth  more  than  evident.  Take  away 
provisions,  implements,  &c.,  and  man  will  be  obliged  to  seek 
his  daily  support  in  the  spontaneous  fruits  of  the  earth.  The 
prehistoric  man  already  made  use  of  capital,  which  consisted  of 
smooth  stones,  bows  and  arrows,  hooks,  &c. — things  that  he 
carried  with  him  when  going  to  hunt  or  to  fish.” 

And  here  observe  how  the  productive  function  of  capital  is 
accomplished — by  the  consumption  of  itself.  When  speaking  of 
production,  we  showed  that  it  takes  place  by  the  consumption 
of  existing  values.  The  capital  is  consumed ;  it  loses  its  value 
that  it  may  have  produce  in  return. 

Nor  need  you  urge,  against  what  has  been  here  stated,  that  fixed 
capital  remains  after  the  productive  period.  It  remains  indeed, 
but  no  longer  what  it  was  :  it  is  worn  down,  more  or  less.  Its 
fixity  is  relative  :  if  it  is  fixed  for  a  number  of  productive  turns, 
it  at  last  finds  its  death  in  production.  It  must  be  renewed. 
Fixed  for  a  number  of  productive  turns,  it  is  afterwards  for  a 
number  circulating.  From  this  point  of  view,  capital  appears 
to  us  as  a  factor  that,  disappearing  in  production,  should  reappear 
in  produce. 

So  much  being  granted,  the  question  whether  a  quota  of  produce 
belongs  to  capital  is  out  of  place.  Capital  produces,  and  that 
which  is  its  produce  ought  to  belong  to  it,  or  to  him  who  owns  it. 

From  the  quota  of  produce  that  belongs  to  capital,  take  away 
the  value  of  the  capital  that  has  been  consumed,  and  you  will 
have  the  net  result  or  produce,  which  in  economy  is  called  “  profit,” 
and  more  frequently  “  interest.” 

That  capital  has  a  function  in  favour  of  society  is  only  too 
evident  from  what  we  have  said  of  its  nature  and  its  productive 
power.  If,  a  productive  enterprise  having  been  completed, 
and  the  produce  having  been  divided  between  master  and  work¬ 
man,  everything  belonging  to  each  party  has  been  consumed, 
the  productive  process  would  never  advance.  Suppose,  instead, 
that  after  a  first  production,  all  the  produce  is  not  consumed, 
but  at  least  a  part  is  saved,  and  that  this  part  is  employed  in  the 
purchase  of  machines,  implements,  &c.,  for  a  more  extensive 
and  rational  production — it  is  clear  that  there  will  be  a  more 
perfect  productive  process  and  a  more  abundant  produce.  Without 
capital,  the  productive  force  of  the  land  would  be  exhausted 

K 


146  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


little  by  little.  In  like  manner  it  would  be  impossible  to  raise  the 
fine  buildings,  or  to  procure  the  powerful  machinery,  required 
for  the  progressive  development  of  industries. 

And  does  not  all  this  become  advantageous  to  society  ?  The 
population  of  the  world  has  been  increasing  in  the  course  of 
ages.  Where  or  how  would  so  many  new  hands  have  been  able 
to  find  labour,  by  which  they  would  procure  bread  for  their 
families,  if  they  were  entirely  without  capital  ? 

The  progress  that  the  world  has  made  in  regard  to  economy, 
whose  benefits  we  all  enjoy,  is  due  mainly  to  the  power  of  large 
capitals,  which  have  so  immense  a  part  in  the  productions  of  the 
present  day.  And  the  hope  of  greater  economic  goods  pleases 
humanity.  That  it  is  so  we  bless  God,  who  shows  that  even 
from  the  hardest  rock  or  the  most  arid  soil  He  can  draw  bread 
for  His  children,  who  are  multiplied  on  earth.  This  is  a  point  of 
view  from  which  it  seems  to  us  that  large  capitals  have  a 
providential  mission. 


Themes. — A  disciple  of  Marx,  wishing  to  show  that  the  value  of  a  product 
is  entirely  due  to  labour,  argues  thus  : — “  If  from  a  piece  of  iron  value  a 
shilling,  I  make  a  farming  implement,  its  value  will  become  half-a-crown  ; 
the  increase  of  value  is  due  to  labour  alone  ;  if  now,  by  my  labour,  I  return 
this  implement  to  a  piece  of  iron,  its  value  will  again  become  a  shilling.” 
How  is  he  to  be  answered  ? — All  kinds  of  industries,  in  order  to  be  practised, 
have  need  of  capital — How  an  increase  of  capital  is  an  element  of  civilisa¬ 
tion  :  the  larger  the  capital  possessed,  the  less  is  the  strength  of  man  required 
in  the  work  of  production. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

INDUSTRY. 

Section  I. — Varieties  of  Industry. 

The  different  modes  by  which  the  agents  of  production  accom¬ 
plish  the  productive  process  and  attain  their  scope  are  called 
“  industries/'  Now,  grouping  together  those  which  are  most 
alike,  we  may  reduce  all  industries  to  three  classes.* * 

*  It  would  be  better  if  many  of  our  young  men  would  turn  to  some  good 
industry  rather  than  aim  at  the  medical  or  legal  profession.  There  are  too 
many  doctors  and  lawyers  who,  notwithstanding  the  importance  of  their 
services,  find  it  no  easy  matter  to  earn  a  respectable  livelihood  ;  whereas, 
if  they  had  taken  to  some  “  business  ”  career,  they  might,  with  their  abilities, 
have  become  far  more  prosperous.  We  may  hope  that  the  new  National 
University  in  Dublin,  directed  by  an  enlightened  senate,  and  giving  a  better 
tone  to  education  all  over  the  country,  will  fit  many  of  its  students  to  take 
an  efficient  part  in  developing  by  every  possible  means  the  material  resources 
of  Ireland.  This  will  be  the  way  to  have  agriculture,  manufactures,  and 
commerce  flourish. 

A  striking  example  of  the  enormous  wealth  to  which  some  men  attain 
by  an  industrial  pursuit  is  that  of  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie.  Born  in  1837,  he 
began,  when  about  ten  years  of  age,  to  earn  his  bread  as  a  bobbin-boy  in 


SMALL  AND  LARGE  INDUSTRIES 


147 


The  first  consists  of  those  which  have  for  their  object  to  bring 
ns  the  fruits  of  nature,  either  by  taking  them  without  more 
ado,  as  the  fisherman  takes  fish,  or  by  co-operating  with  nature 
in  the  production  and  ripening  of  a  crop,  as  the  farmer  does. 
This  industry  is  said  to  be  “  agricultural/' 

A  second  class  of  industries  have  as  their  object  to  work  on  the 
products  of  other  industries,  and  thereby  to  give  them  a  utility 
for  us  that  they  had  not  before.  These  are  called  “  manufactur¬ 
ing"  industries. 

The  third  class  of  industries  is  that  whose  business  it  is  to  carry 
things  to  a  place  where  they  will  have  a  special  utility.  These 
industries  are  called  “  commercial." 

Section  II. — Small  and  Large  Industries. 

Industry  has  existed  at  all  times.  Man,  from  the  earliest 
ages,  found  that  he  should  apply  his  intellectual  and  physical 
powers  to  natural  agents,  in  order  to  have  production  from  them. 
Thus  he  gives  himself  to  work — devotes  himself  to  industry. 

Naturally  we  do  not  regard  man  as  alone,  but  in  society,  and 
first  in  domestic  society.  Here  he  easily  exercised  his  industry, 
assisted  by  those  belonging  to  him,  and  destined  its  produce, 
not  only  for  the  use  of  his  own  household,  but  for  the  use  of  other 
persons.  From  these  other  persons  he  expected  a  return  in  the 
fruits  of  their  industry. 

Industry  strictly  domestic,  although  it  has  ceased  in  great 
measure,  cannot  be  said  to  have  entirely  disappeared.  And  for 
the  advantages,  especially  moral  ones,  that  it  brings  to  the  family, 
in  whose  bosom  it  keeps  alive  a  cordial  union,  which  is  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  all  their  good,  it  would  be  very  desirable  to  have  it 
extensively  revived. 

But  we  must  not  hesitate  to  acknowledge  that,  confined  within 
the  domestic  walls,  it  would  not  be  sufficiently  productive  for  the 
demands  of  modern  society. 

Very  soon,  the  number  of  men  in  the  world  having  increased, 
the  need  of  a  division  of  labour  was  felt,  and  also  the  need  of 
employing  large  capital  in  production,  so  as  to  increase  its  fruit. 

Alleghany  City,  Pennsylvania.  Retiring  from  business  in  1901,  he  trans¬ 
ferred  into  new  hands  the  Carnegie  Steel  Co.  at  a  valuation  of  500,000,000 
dollars,  say  £100,000,000.  Unlike  most  men  of  wealth,  Mr.  Carnegie  is  not 
of  a  grasping  character.  On  the  contrary,  he  has  shown  himself  most 
generous.  With  good  intentions  for  the  welfare  of  the  poorer  classes,  he  has 
founded  an  immense  number  of  libraries  ;  but,  sad  to  say,  it  would  seem 
that  many  of  the  books  placed  on  the  shelves  of  those  libraries  would  be 
much  better  thrown  into  the  fire  than  placed  in  the  hands  of  youth.  Up 
to  1904  his  benefactions  exceeded  £14,000,000,  of  which  £11,000,000  were 
gi\  en  in  the  United  States,  with  the  assurance  of  much  more  to  come.  He 
gave  £2,000,000  to  the  Universities  of  Scotland,  his  native  country,  and 
£500,000  for  improving  and  beautifying  Dunfermline,  his  native  town. 

Of  steel  it  may  be  said  that  through  successive  improvements  in  its 
manufacture  it  has  now  twice  the  strength  of  iron.  It  is  not  fibrous,  but  of 


148 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


And  so  industry  passed  beyond  the  domestic  walls,  profiting 
of  social  inequalities,  and  engaging  other  hands  for  labour,  and 
even  some  capital,  more  or  less.  Here  were  the  small  industries, 
which  continued  universally  until  our  times.  They  did  not 
cease  to  exist  through  any  want  of  vitality  or  through  an  in¬ 
sufficiency  of  good  results.  No,  they  were  suffocated  by  new 
conditions  that  sprang  up  around  them. 

The  history  of  economy  in  modern  times  totally  separates  its 
productive  facts  from  those  of  ancient  times.  The  human  genius 
opened  out  to  marvellous  conquests  in  nature.  It  seized  on 
new  forces,  over  which  it  ruled,  and,  by  means  of  special  inventions, 
made  them  a  suitable  substitute  for  the  physical  fatigue  of  man. 
Behold,  therefore,  machinery  in  the  field  of  industry !  It. 
devours  much  and  produces  much. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  overthrown  barriers  made  communica- 

equal  strength  in  all  directions.  Houses,  with  a  steel  frame- work,  are  built 
to  the  height  of  twenty  stories,  and  are  common  in  the  United  States. 

The  property  of  Mr.  H.  H.  Rogers,  New  York  (at  one  time  a  newsboy),, 
who  carried  on  the  “  Standard  Oil  ”  business,  and  who  died  in  1909,  was 
estimated  at  £10,000,000. 

A  highly  useful  book,  as  showing  the  industries  that  exist  in  Ireland,  and 
also  those  that  might  be  developed  in  different  localities,  is  The  Irish  Manu¬ 
facturers’  Directory  and  Year -Booh,  published  annually  in  Dublin,  by  Mr. 
K.  J.  Kenny,  58  Middle  Abbey  Street.  Another  valuable  little  book  is  The 
Key  to  the  World’s  Progress,  by  Mr.  C.  G.  Devas,  one  of  a  cheap  series  by 
Messrs.  Longmans.  Its  chief  object,  however,  is  to  show  that  true  progress 
ought  not  to  be  merely  material.  For  temporal  glory  and  prosperity  are 
too  often  accompanied  with  a  host  of  vices,  which  prey  like  a  cancer  on  the 
vitals  of  society  ;  and  the  Scripture  assures  us  that  sin  maketh  nations 
miserable.  (Prov.  xiv.  34). 

The  success  of  Mr.  Charles  Dickens  in  a  literary  career  was  very  great — - 
we  might  say  exceptional.  He  began  life  in  a  blacking-store,  and  after  his 
death  his  will  showed  property  to  the  extent  of  £80,000.  But  such  success, 
apart  from  other  considerations,  was  very  small  in  comparison  with  that 
of  Mr.  Carnegie  or  Mr.  Rogers. 

A  most  instructive  lecture  on  the  Literary  Life,  by  the  Very  Rev.  P.  A. 
Canon  Sheehan,  D.D.,  appeared  in  the  Irish  Monthly,  April,  1909. 

Little  need  be  said  of  students  who  desire  to  become  priests,  or  to  devote 
their  lives  entirely  to  the  service  of  God.  There  is  ample  room  for  them  ; 
and  it  is  highly  creditable  to  many  Catholic  families  in  Ireland  that  for 
generations  past  they  have  always  endeavoured  to  give  at  least  one  of  their 
members  to  the  Church.  No  more  useful  or  meritorious  work  can  be 
imagined  than  to  labour  for  the  salvation  of  souls. 

It  is  a  pity  that  more  of  our  young  men,  especially  such  as  would  feel 
obliged  by  circumstances  to  emigrate,  do  not  think  of  competing  for  some 
of  the  higher  situations  at  home  or  abroad  in  the  Civil  Service,  but  leave 
them  to  be  taken  by  Englishmen  and  Scotchmen,  who  are  far  from  being 
their  superiors  in  genuine  talent  or  ability.  N6  doubt  there  are  some  dis¬ 
advantages  connected  with  them,  but  is  there  any  position  in  life  free  from 
all  objection  ?  If  Irishmen  were  excluded  from  employment  in  those  rather 
enviable  situations,  would  there  not  be  loud  complaints  of  such  injustice  ? 
The  position  is  respectable,  the  salary  good  (sometimes  rising  above  £1,000), 
the  hours  of  business  very  moderate,  the  responsibilities  less  than  in  many 
other  conditions  of  life  ;  there  is  an  annual  vacation ;  there  is  leave  of  absence 
in  case  of  sickness,  with  continued  pay  ;  and  a  liberal  pension  is  allowed  on 
retirement,  which  takes  place  at  a  comparatively  early  age,  when  a  man 


SMALL  AND  LARGE  INDUSTRIES 


149 


tion  easy  between  people  and  people,  and  widened  immensely 
the  old  market-place.  Behold  the  large  industries  !  These  have 
certainly  their  advantages,  of  which  economists  discourse  at 
great  length.  Nor  without  reason ;  for,  having  lowered  much 
the  price  of  products,  they  rendered  the  acquisition  and  use  of 
them  more  easy  and  therefore  more  general.  We  wish,  however, 
to  place  under  the  eyes  of  the  student  some  reflections  that  are 
socially  of  the  greatest  importance. 

The  large  industries  are  naturally  the  rivals  of  the  small  ones, 
which  can  scarcely,  except  for  some  special  reason  here  and  there, 
survive.  Attracted  by  the  large  industries,  small  patrimonies, 
which  supported  many  respectable  positions,  should,  by  the 
force  of  things,  flow  thither,  and  there  they  remained  like  branches 
without  a  trunk,  their  energies  exhausted.  Masters  became 
servants ;  capitalists,  workingmen. 

can  still  be  of  much  service  to  his  country.  To  disregard  all  these  advantages, 
saying  that  a  son  of  Ireland  ought  not  to  be  a  servant  of  England  (even 
though  his  prospects  in  Ireland  may  not  be  good),  seems  to  be  a  serious 
mistake,  and  may  leave  many  a  deserving  youth  to  spend  his  life  in  a  con¬ 
stant  struggle  with  poverty — a  high  price  to  pay  for  the  indulgence  of  a 
hobby. 

No  wonder  that  an  intelligent  writer  in  the  Irish  Educational  Review 
(July,  1909,  p.  613)  asks  : — “  How  many  Intermediate  Exhibitioners  have 
been  in  menial  employment  in  the  City  of  Cork  ?  One,  I  am  told,  is,  or 
was,  a  coal  heaver;  others  are  earning  a  scanty  wage,  barely  sufficient  to 
keep  soul  and  body  together.” 

If  men  insist  on  a  total  separation  from  England,  may  they  not  have  to 
wait  for  it  till  the  Greek  Calends  ?  Is  it  not  better  to  make  a  virtue  of 
necessity  ?  There  is  no  just  reason  to  suppose  that  a  man  holding  one  of 
those  situations  would  cease  to  be  a  patriotic  Irishman.  He  would  rather 
disarm  prejudice,  and  promote  the  interests  of  Ireland  wherever  he  went. 
His  experience  in  different  regions  would  enable  him  to  give  prudent  advice 
with  regard  to  matters  of  trade  and  commerce.  Moreover,  he  could  easily 
afford  to  assist  his  relatives,  if  they  required  his  aid.  But  perhaps  the 
best  feature  of  all  in  the  case  is  that  he  would  have  ample  opportunity  for 
practising  his  religious  as  well  as  social  duties. 

Some  of  our  Colleges — notably  Blackrock — that  have  applied  themselves 
to  the  development  of  this  mine,  have  been  wonderfully  successful. 
Candidates  require  a  good  all-round  education  in  the  first  place,  and  then 
a  special  grinding  that  will  fit  them  to  deal  accurately  with  strict  examination 
tests.  Careless  work  has  no  chance.  A  limit  is  put  to  age. 

There  are  other  situations  of  a  still  higher  order  in  the  Civil  Service,  but 
we  have  not  referred  to  them,  as  they  are  not  open  to  competition.  They 
are  filled  by  appointment. 

If  Ireland  had  the  same  favourable  conditions  of  existence  as  other 
countries  under  English  rule,  such  as  Australia,  Canada,  South  Africa,  &c., 
there  would  be  plenty  of  congenial  situations  for  young  Irishmen  in  their 
native  land,  and  there  would  be  little  need  of  emigration. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  all  situations  in  the  Banks,  Railways,  &c.,  of  Ireland, 
which  earn  their  money  by  Irish  business,  will  soon  be  thrown  open  to  public 
competition.  Many  of  those  situations,  however,  will  be  far  less  remunera¬ 
tive  and  far  more  risky  than  those  to  which  we  have  alluded  above. 

Whatever  position  in  life  a  man  may  occupy,  he  ought  to  bear  a  high 
character  for  honesty,  truthfulness,  and  all  other  such  virtues,  which  he 
should  practice  not  merely  from  worldly  motives,  but  in  accordance 
with  the  dictates  of  a  good  conscience. — Trans. 


150  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


Tlius  society,  which,  in  order  to  have  stability,  requires  many 
various  classes,  found  itself  to  consist  for  the  most  part  of  poor 
workmen,  and  a  small  minority  of  capitalists,  rising  suddenly 
and  often  recklessly  to  the  top  of  the  ladder. 

We  will  not  say  that  in  these  conditions  social  life  is  impossible. 
We  will  only  say  that  it  is  possible  under  one  or  other  of  the 
following  alternatives.  Either  breathe  into  the  social  body 
such  an  abundant  spirit  of  Christianity  as  will  give  the  upper 
classes  a  proper  consciousness  of  their  social  duties,  so  that  they — 
mindful  that  might  is  not  right — may  share  with  the  lower  classes, 
as  justice  and  charity  require,  those  good  things  of  God  wdiich  their 
industry  has  brought  forth  ;  or — because  it  is  in  no  man’s  power 
to  secure  that  first  alternative — guarantee  that,  by  special 
contracts  or  provident  regulations,  the  lower  classes  will  be 
protected  under  the  shield  of  State  supervision  from  the 
exorbitant  demands  of  the  upper. 

In  taking  these  precautions,  it  is  proper  to  bear  in  mind  the 
numerous  abuses  for  which  large  industries  offer  an  easy 
opportunity.  Low  wages,  unhealthy  places  for  work,  association 
of  sexes,  a  time-table  inconsistent  with  age,  with  sex,  with  home 
duties,  with  decorum,  with  strength,  with  humanity — these  are 
grave  abuses,  which  injure  families  and  all  society. 

Leo  XIII.,  after  acknowledging  that  “  the  wonderful  progress 
in  arts  and  in  new  methods  of  industry,  the  changed  relations 
between  masters  and  workpeople,  the  large  fortunes  accumulated 
in  the  hands  of  a  few,  the  poverty  of  the  multitude,  the  greater 
self-reliance  and  closer  combination  of  the  working  classes,  and  a 
moral  deterioration  have  brought  about  a  conflict,”  asserts  in 
clear  language  that  “  there  is  an  obligation  on  employers  to  allow 
workpeople  sufficient  time  to  comply  wfith  their  religious  duties, 
not  to  expose  them  to  corrupting  influences  and  dangerous 
occasions,  not  to  turn  away  their  minds  from  the  family  spirit 
and  the  love  of  thrift,  not  to  impose  work  on  them  disproportioned 
to  their  strength  or  unsuited  to  their  age  or  sex  .  .  .  Let 

capitalists  and  employers  remember  that  to  oppress  the  poor 
and  needy  for  the  sake  of  gain,  or  to  traffic  in  the  misery  of  others, 
is  not  allowed  by  any  law,  divine  or  human.”  { Rerum  novarum.) 

The  large  industries,  as  systematised  and  managed  at  the  present 
day,  are  characterised  by  a  marked  separation  of  labour  from 
capital.  These  two  things,  which  ought  to  act  in  harmony, 
are  formed  into  two  opposing  camps,  each  struggling  for  a  defence 
and  triumph  of  its  own  interests. 

Facts  are  only  too  numerous  in  confirmation  of  what  has  been 
here  said.  “  By  degrees  the  working  classes,  isolated  and  defence¬ 
less,  have  been  placed  at  the  mercy  of  inhuman  masters,  and 
exposed  to  the  greed  of  unrestrained  competition.  .  .  .  These 

evils  have  been  increased  by  a  monopoly  of  labour,  and  by  the 
concentration  of  all  branches  of  trade  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  so 
that  a  very  small  number  of  rich  men  have  laid  on  a  countless 


THE  UNDERTAKER  OR  CONTRACTOR 


151 


multitude  of  poor  people  a  yoke  little  better  than  slavery.’" 
(Rerum  novarum.) 

Such  a  state  of  affairs  has  been  caused  for  the  most  part  by 
large  industries,  which,  unless  a  remedy  is  applied  in  time, 
threaten  the  very  existence  of  civil  society. 

Section  III. — The  Undertaker  or  Contractor. 

The  union  of  property  and  labour  in  a  productive  work  is 
certainly  more  effectual  when  property  and  labour  are  in  the 
hands  of  only  one  individual.  This,  however,  in  the  present 
condition  of  industry,  happens  seldom.  It  oftener  happens 
that  two  or  three  individuals  are  in  possession  of  the  pro¬ 
ductive  agents.  To  bring  them  together  is  necessary  for 
production.  This  is  done  by  means  of  co-operative  societies 
or  the  like. 

But  these  do  not  always  suit  the  conditions  of  the  different 
proprietors.  Special  contracts  are  then  made,  by  which  it  is 
agreed  that  one  person  alone,  who  is  really  master  neither  of 
capital  nor  labour,  should  assume  the  responsibility  of  uniting 
both.  And  this  through  special  contracts,  by  which,  with 
confident  anticipation,  he  releases  proprietors,  capitalists,  and 
labourers  from  danger  of  loss  in  production.  He  takes  all  the 
risk  on  himself,  and  proceeds  to  production.  This  new  character 
who  makes  his  appearance,  in  addition  to  the  three  agents  already 
mentioned,  is  called  the  undertaker  or  contractor. 

What,  therefore,  is  an  undertaker  ?  Boccardo  defines  him 
as  one  whose  profession  consists  in  conceiving  and  conducting 
an  agricultural,  manufacturing,  or  commercial  enterprise.  His 
essential  function  in  the  undertaking  to  which  he  devotes  himself, 
and  in  which  many  others  besides  him  are  concerned,  is,  says 
Concede- Seneuil,  to  foresee  and  to  provide  for  contingencies ; 
to  associate  and  to  direct  labour  and  capital  in  production ;  to 
suit  products  to  the  wants  of  the  times  ;  and  to  adapt  the  supply 
to  the  demand.  “  It  is  enough,”  continues  the  same  author, 
“  to  cast  a  look  on  modern  society,  in  order  to  observe  that 
among  those  who  compete,  by  any  title,  in  the  production  of 
goods,  there  are  three  distinct  classes.  Some  persons  have 
capital,  and  confide  to  others  the  care  of  employing  it :  they  are 
capitalists.  A  second  class  entrust  to  others  the  employment 
of  their  personal  labour  :  they  are  men  of  wages  or  salary.  The 
last,  in  fine,  study  to  give  of  themselves  employment  to  labour 
and  capital,  either  their  own,  or  received  on  loan :  they  are 
undertakers.”  ( Diz .,  II.,  442.) 

Is  the  undertaker  a  help  to  production  ?  Without  doubt. 
He  is  a  man  of  special  technical  ability,  who  groups  three  agents 
together,  so  that  the  production  may  be  more  abundant  and 
perfect.  And  this  is  a  benefit  for  all  civil  society. 


152  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


Does  he  deserve  a  reward  for  his  work  ?  Who  can  doubt  it  ? 
What  wonder  ?  His  technical  ability  has  had  an  effect,  and  the 
effect  ought  to  be  his  by  every  right. 

This  remuneration,  which  is  the  portion  of  the  produce  due 
to  the  technical  aid  of  the  undertaker,  is  called  “  profit.55 

Besides  the  title  of  causality,  there  is  another  of  which  we 
must  make  account  in  settling  the  proportion  of  produce  that 
constitutes  profit.  It  is  the  risky  character  that  is  inseparable 
from  every  produce.  The  undertaker  pays  by  anticipation  for 
labour,  rent  of  land,  interest  of  capital.  He  then  goes  forth  to 
take  his  chance — either  a  notable  profit  or  a  serious  loss — not 
only  a  loss  of  profit,  but  perhaps  a  wreck  of  all  his  anticipations. 
If  the  result  of  a  hazardous  eventuality  is  good,  to  whom  ought 
it  to  pertain  if  not  to  the  adventurer  ?  That  is  to  say,  to  the 
undertaker. 


Section  IY. — The  Contract  of  Labour. 

Labour  and  capital  require  to  be  united.  Hence,  special 
contracts  for  this  union.  These  contracts,  as  they  mostly  occur 
by  a  bargain  that  the  proprietor  or  capitalist  makes  for  the 
work  of  the  labourer,  take  the  name  of  “  contracts  of  labour/5 

What  are  the  coefficients  of  such  a  contract  ?  The  liberal 
school  recognises  only  two — the  capitalist  and  the  labourer.  It 
does  not  care  whether  there  is  any  freedom  of  consent  between 
the  parties  who  make  a  bargain.  The  contract  is  thrown  on  the 
waves  of  free  competition.  We  recognise  a  third  coefficient, 
which,  properly  speaking,  would  be  the  first,  and  which,  as  the 
Pope  says,  is  “  anterior  and  superior  to  the  free  will  of  the  con¬ 
tracting  parties.55  It  is  natural  justice. 

Though  we  have  set  forth  in  a  former  chapter  the  characteristics 
of  labour  that  raise  it  immensely  above  common  merchandise, 
we  admit  that  the  contract  of  labour  is  just,  and  is  agreed  to 
freely  between  two  parties.  The  encyclical  makes  mention  of 
three  coefficients  when,  speaking  of  the  duties  of  the  workman, 
it  says  that  he  is  “  to  perform  honestly  and  faithfully  the  work 
that  was  freely  and  according  to  equity  contracted  for.55 

Nor  does  this  natural  justice  enter  into  the  contract  of  labour 
only  with  regard  to  wages,  but  it  enters  generally,  for  the  defence 
of  every  purpose  that  nature  intends  by  labour.  For  instance, 
in  regard  to  rest,  to  which  the  workman  has  a  right,  the  Pope 
says :  — “  In  every  agreement  that  is  entered  into  between 
masters  and  workmen,  there  is  always  the  condition,  expressed 
or  understood,  that  both  kinds  of  rest  will  be  allowed.  Nor 
would  it  be  just  to  agree  otherwise ;  because  it  is  never  lawful 
for  anyone  to  ask  or  to  promise  a  neglect  of  the  duties  that  a  man 
owes  to  God  and  to  himself.55  ( Rerum  novarwn.) 


WAGES 


153 


Section  V. — The  Co-operative  System. 

A  very  obvious  mode  of  uniting  capital  with  labour  in  production 
is  that  of  the  co-operative  societies.  They  would  appear  the 
ideal  of  industrial  enterprises,  but  they  are  not  equally  practical. 
By  the  large  industries,  which  require  immense  capital,  they  are 
avoided  more  and  more  every  day.  Brants  gives  us  three  types 
of  them. 

The  first  type  is  that  of  a  co-operation  of  persons.  Several 
workmen  place  themselves  at  the  head  of  the  enterprise.  They 
study  its  difficulties,  and  settle  about  them.  They  provide 
means,  work  together,  and,  the  production  being  finished,  divide 
the  produce. 

The  second  type  is  that  of  a  co-operation  of  capitals.  They 
are  companies  into  which  it  is  necessary  that  each  member  should 
enter  with  some  capital.  Shares  are  formed ;  and  each  work¬ 
man,  according  to  the  amount  of  his  funds,  takes  a  number  of 
them.  In  the  division  of  the  produce,  account  is  made  of  the 
number  of  shares  that  each  one  holds. 

The  third  type  is  that  of  Societies  with  participation  in  benefits. 
This  system  is  in  substance  that  of  men  receiving  wages,  of  which 
we  shall  soon  speak.  Its  special  feature  is  that,  at  the  end  of  the 
production,  it  calls  together  the  workmen  (who  have  already 
received  their  wages),  and  gives  them  a  portion  of  the  net  profits. 

Section  YI. — Wages. 

The  most  common  mode  at  present  of  uniting  capital  with 
labour  is  that  of  wages.  It  is  a  system  much  exposed  to  the 
abuses  of  capital,  and  therefore  requires  to  be  supplemented  by 
honesty  in  the  contracting  parties,  and  by  such  regulations  as 
may  place  them  in  a  position  of  sufficient  freedom. 

We  may,  therefore,  define  wages  as  that  quota  which  is 
anticipated  on  the  future  produce  for  the  workman  by  the 
capitalist  or  undertaker,  who  takes  on  himself  the  risk  of  the 
production. 

Production,  even  the  most  safe  or  promising,  is  subject  to  two 
conditions,  which  are  inseparable.  They  are  (i.)  a  certain  space 
of  time  before  having  the  produce,  and  (ii.)  a  more  or  less  probable 
chance  of  a  result  little  remunerative,  perhaps  not  at  all  so,  but 
disastrous.  And  thus  production  takes  so  far  a  gaming  character. 
The  game  affects  the  capitalist ;  it  does  not  affect  the  workman. 
Wages  anticipate  and  secure  for  the  needy  workman  his  quota 
of  the  produce.  It  follows  that  they  are  a  real  advantage  for  him. 

A  question  is  asked  :  Are  there  any  natural  principles  from 
which  springs  the  right  of  a  workman  to  a  reward  for  his  work  ? 

There  ought  to  be,  and  there  are,  in  our  opinion,  two.  The 
first  is  that  labour  is  productive.  Labour,  like  everything  else 


154  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


in  the  world,  is  a  design  of  God,  and  He  designed  it  in  so  far  that, 
by  itself,  it  can  realise  the  phenomenon  of  production.  Now, 
common  sense  teaches  that  the  produce  should  go  to  the  producer, 
as  to  its  cause.  The  encyclical  alludes  to  this  principle  when  it 
reasons  thus  : — “  Would  it  be  justice  if  he  who  has  not  laboured 
should  enjoy  the  fruits  of  another  man’s  labour  ?  As  the  effect 
follows  its  cause,  so  it  is  right  that  the  fruit  of  labour  should 
belong  to  him  who  labours.”  But  the  destination  of  human 
labour  to  production  cannot  be  final.  Labour  has  as  its  end 
to  serve  man,  by  its  fruits.  Here  we  see  the  second  principle  of 
wages.  The  fruit  of  labour,  or  the  produce,  ought,  by  the  arrange¬ 
ment  of  nature,  to  serve  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  wants  of  him 
who  labours.  Behold  the  words  of  the  Pope  :  — “  To  labour  is  to 
exert  oneself  in  order  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  life,  and 
especially  for  its  preservation  :  in  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou 
eat  bread.” 

Observe  how  the  first  principle  brings  directly  to  the  capitalist 
the  duty  of  giving  the  labourer  a  just  payment,  and  to  the  labourer 
the  right  of  claiming  it.  The  second  brings  a  duty  directly  to 
the  labourer,  who  ought  to  use  his  wages  for  his  own  support. 
It  is  also  useful  to  observe  how  the  second  principle  takes  its 
origin  from  the  first ;  for  we  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the 
labourer  has  a  right  to  wages  by  himself,  but  because  his  labour 
is  productive.  So  that  if  there  was  a  time  in  history  when 
labour  did  not  produce  as  much  as  was  required  for  the  support 
of  the  labourer,  he  had  not  a  right  to  the  usual  wages,  but  only  to 
that  quota  which  corresponded  to  the  productivity  of  his  labour. 

In  what  measure  then  are  wages  due  to  the  workman  ?  Do 
the  two  principles  above-mentioned  throw  any  light  on  the 
subject  ?  We  believe  that  theoretically  they  may  indeed  supply 
an  answer  to  the  question.  The  first  says  that  the  labourer  has  a 
right  to  the  whole  quota  of  produce  that  is  the  effect  of  his  labour. 
Can  there  be  any  doubt  of  it  ?  The  second  offers  a  more  specific 
determination,  inasmuch  as  it  also  points  out  the  use  for  which 
the  produce  of  labour  is  intended.  So  that  if  the  whole  produce 
of  labour  passes  naturally  into  the  ownership  of  the  labourer, 
■we  must  remember  that  of  one  portion  of  it  the  labourer  has  not 
the  free  use  :  it  should  be  employed  as  nature  wishes.  Of  the 
portion  that  remains,  after  this  appointed  use,  the  labourer,  who 
is  master  of  it,  can  dispose  as  he  pleases,  and  therefore  can  even 
make  a  present  of  it. 

But  we  are  not  yet  come  to  the  measure  of  wages.  We  have 
reasoned  on  the  right  that  the  labourer  has  to  a  part  of  the  produce. 
The  man  under  wages,  however,  wishes  to  be  treated  with  other 
considerations.  We  spoke  of  a  special  contract,  which  contains 
some  favourable  elements  for  the  labourer  ;  and  compensation 
for  these  elements  is  made  to  the  capitalist  by  a  particular 
advantage,  which  is  the  probability  of  a  greater  quota  of  produce 
than  would  otherwise  fall  to  him. 


WAGES 


155 


We  see,  therefore,  that  the  second  principle  takes  away  from 
the  free  disposal  of  the  contracting  parties  a  portion  of  the  wages 
(that  which  is  needed  for  the  wants  of  the  labourer)  ;  and  leaves 
the  rest  to  the  bargain  of  the  labourer  with  him  who  buys  his 
labour.  The  words  of  the  encyclical  on  this  point  are  well  known. 
The  Pope,  having  shown  the  opinion  of  classic  economy,  which, 
misunderstanding  the  natural  origin  of  wages,  abandons  every¬ 
thing  to  the  contract  between  the  labourer  and  the  capitalist, 
says  : — 

'4  To  this  kind  of  reasoning  a  fair-minded  man  cannot  easily 
or  entirely  agree  ;  for  there  is  one  consideration  of  the  greatest 
importance  that  it  omits.  To  labour  is  to  exert  oneself  in  order 
to  provide  for  the  wants  of  life,  and  especially  for  its  preservation  : 
in  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread.  Human  labour  has, 
therefore,  two  characteristics  impressed  on  it  by  nature.  First, 
it  is  personal,  because  the  active  power  belongs  to  him  by  whom 
it  is  exercised,  and  for  whose  advantage  it  has  been  given. 
Secondly,  such  labour  is  necessary,  because  man  requires  the 
fruit  of  labour  for  the  maintenance  of  life  :  the  preservation  of 
life  is  an  indispensable  duty  imposed  by  nature.  Now,  if  we 
consider  labour  only  inasmuch  as  it  is  personal,  there  is  no  doubt 
that  the  workman  can  agree  to  a  payment  lower  than  is  just ; 
for  as  he  is  free  to  work  or  not,  so  he  is  free  to  accept  small  wages 
or  even  none  at  all.  But  far  differently  must  we  judge  when 
account  is  made  not  only  of  personality ,  but  also  of  necessity  : 
two  things  separable  in  thought,  but  not  in  reality.  The  preserva¬ 
tion  of  life  is  a  duty,  in  which  no  one  can  fail  without  crime. 
Hence  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  the  right  of  seeking 
means  of  support,  which  with  poor  people  are  reduced  to  wages 
for  their  work. 

Let  it  be  granted  then  that  a  workman  and  an  employer 
make  a  bargain  by  mutual  consent  especially  with  regard  to 
the  amount  of  wages  ;  there  always  enters  an  element  of  natural 
justice,  anterior  and  superior  to  the  will  of  the  contracting  parties, 
and  it  is  that  the  remuneration  should  not  be  less  than  is  required 
for  the  support  of  the  workman  in  frugal  and  decent  comfort. 
If  through  necessity,  or  through  fear  of  a  worse  evil,  the  workman 
agrees  to  harder  conditions,  which,  being  imposed  by  the  employer 
or  contractor,  must  willingly  or  unwillingly  be  accepted,  this  is 
to  suffer  violence,  against  which  justice  protests/’ 

We  ought  not  to  forget  that  the  labourer  is  a  man,  and  that 
therefore  wages  ought  to  be  sufficient,  not  for  the  support  of  an 
animal  that  leads  a  merely  animal  life  (as  the  English  school 
would  have  it),  but  of  an  animal  that  is  rational,  a  human  being, 
who  has  duties  of  improvement  towards  himself  and  of  worship 
towards  God,  which  he  is  enabled  to  discharge  by  a  good  use  of 
his  wages.  The  same  Holy  Father,  in  the  encyclical  Graves  de 
communi,  explaining  the  programme  of  Christian  Democracy, 
says  of  workmen  :  — “  That  at  home  and  in  public  they  may  freely 


156  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


comply  with  their  moral  and  religions  duties ;  that  they  may 
feel  themselves  not  to  be  beasts  but  men,  not  pagans  but 
Christians ;  and  that  they  may  thus  more  easily  and  earnestly 
devote  themselves  to  the  attainment  of  the  one  thing  necessary , 
the  supreme  good,  for  which  we  are  born.” 

A  minimum  of  wages,  below  which  neither  the  labourer  nor 
the  employer  can  go  without  offending  against  natural  justice, 
is  shown  by  what  is  required  for  the  support  of  a  frugal  and  well- 
conducted  workman.  Take  notice,  however,  of  every  word.  It 
is  said  that  this  is  the  minimum,  but  not  that  it  is  the  maximum. 
If  justice  is  offended  by  going  below  the  minimum,  it  may  also 
be  offended  by  stopping  at  that  amount — if,  taking  every  cir¬ 
cumstance  into  account,  a  sum  is  not  given  to  the  workman  pro¬ 
portional  to  the  productivity  of  his  labour. 

“  Family  wages”  are  so  called  because  they  are  sufficient  for 
the  support  not  only  of  a  workman,  but  also  of  his  family.  Now 
comes  the  question  :  Ought  the  wages  of  the  workman  to  be 
“family  wages”? 

Nearly  all  Catholic  economists  say  so.  But  they  are  not 
unanimous  in  assigning  a  title  for  it.  Some  maintain  that  family 
wages,  in  the  same  manner  as  individual  wages,  are  due  by  natural 
justice.  Others  argue  thus  :  As,  the  labourer  being  rational, 
individual  wages  ought  to  correspond  to  the  requirements  of  a 
creature  endowed  with  reason,  so,  having  from  nature  a  right 
to  form  a  family,  and,  it  being  formed,  having  a  right  to  support 
and  educate  it,  the  wages  ought  to  be  family  wages,  in  order  that 
the  labourer  who  has  a  family  may  be  able  to  fulfil  his  duties 
towards  it.  Such  is  the  opinion  of  Liberatore,  Steccanella, 
Pottier,  and  others  of  great  weight. 

Others,  opposing  this  view,  go  with  Antoine,  who  derives 
not  from  commutative  justice,  but  from  social  justice,  the  right 
of  the  labourer  to  sufficient  wages  for  the  support  of  his  family  : 
“  but  if  family  wages  are  not  an  object  of  commutative  justice, 
they  are  not  less  required  by  social  order  or  less  necessary  for 
the  common  good  of  society.” 

The  encyclical  (Rer.  nov.)  does  not  decide  this  point.  Only 
on  one  occasion  does  it  make  mention  of  family  wages — where  it 
exhorts  the  labourer  to  make  a  wise  use  of  the  fruit  of  his  labour. 
"  When  the  wages  of  a  workman  are  sufficient  to  maintain  himself, 
his  wife,  and  his  children  in  reasonable  comfort,  he  will  easily, 
if  he  is  a  wise  man,  study  thrift.” 

For  the  rest,  Christian  Democracy  has  adopted  the  principle 
of  family  wages,  and  the  Catholic  Congress  of  Social  Studies 
held  at  Genoa  in  1891  solemnly  proclaimed  the  workman's  right 
to  them. 

Another  question  regarding  wages  is  this  :  Should  the  State 
interfere  in  the  contract  of  labour,  and  secure  to  the  labourer 
at  least  a  minimum  of  wages  ?  Some  absolutely  deny  it,  and 
they  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  whose  encyclical  is  silent 


WAGES 


157 


on  such  a  duty  in  the  State.  Cathrein  would  have  the  State 
interfere,  but  only  when  justice  is  endangered.  The  State,  he 
says,  can  fix  the  smallest  amount  of  wages,  if  there  is  danger  of 
their  being  lowered  beyond  the  limits  of  justice  ( Philos .  Moral., 
p.  419).  Many  declare  without  any  hesitation  that  this  is  a  duty 
of  the  State,  since  it  concerns  the  wellbeing  of  the  workman  and 
his  family,  and  therefore  of  all  society. 

As  for  those  who  maintain  that  there  should  be  no  interference, 
because  the  Pope  does  not  claim  it,  or  rather  he  excludes  it,  we 
may  be  permitted  to  recall  the  true  terms  of  the  subject,  and  the 
manner  in  which  the  Pope  treats  it.  'Two  questions  appear  for 
consideration  :  first,  if  the  State  ought  to  fix  a  minimum  of  wages 
for  each  particular  industry ;  and  secondly,  if  it  ought  to  fix  a 
general  minimum,  below  which  no  employer  could  descend. 

The  first  question,  we  believe,  ought  to  be  settled  by  having 
no  interference  of  the  State,  because  it  is  beyond  the  power  of 
the  State  to  have  such  a  knowledge  of  minute  elements  as  is 
indispensable  for  a  just  rule.  Here  we  believe  that  between  the 
State  and  the  contracting  parties  there  is  room  for  the  action  of 
societies  or  guilds.  And  this  agrees  well  with  what  the  encyclical 
says  : — “  In  these  and  similar  cases — such  as  the  hours  of  labour 
in  different  trades,  the  sanitary  precautions  to  be  observed  in 
workshops,  &c. — that  authority  may  not  meddle  without  cause, 
especially  when  there  is  so  great  a  variety  of  affairs,  times,  and 
places,  it  will  be  better  to  reserve  these  things  for  the  judgment 
of  Boards,  such  as  we  shall  mention  presently,  or  to  take  some 
other  way  of  protecting,  in  accordance  with  justice,  the  interests 
of  the  wage-earners — the  State  giving,  if  necessary,  its  approval 
and  support.”  This  would  suit  exceedingly  well. 

The  second  question  we  settle  by  calling  for  the  interference 
of  the  State.  And  it  appears  to  be  what  the  encyclical  desires. 
The  Pope  treats  of  this  point  when  he  shows  what  the  State 
ought  to  do  for  the  solution  of  the  social  question.  Let  us  hear 
how  he  refers  to  it : — “  We  now  approach  a  subject  that  is  of 
great  importance,  and  that  requires  to  be  well  understood,  so  as 
not  to  fall  into  one  or  other  of  two  opposite  extremes.  The 
amount  of  wages,  we  are  told,  is  fixed  by  free  consent.  Therefore 
the  employer,  having  paid  the  wages,  has  done  his  part,  and  does 
not  seem  to  owe  anything  more.  Then  only  is  an  injustice  done 
if  the  master  does  not  pay  the  full  wages,  or  if  the  workman 
does  not  perform  the  full  work  agreed  to.  In  these  cases,  but 
in  no  others,  it  is  proper  that  the  State  should  interfere,  so  that 
each  one's  right  may  be  protected.”  Here  the  Pope  sets  forth, 
as  everyone  sees,  the  theory  of  the  liberal  classical  school.  He 
then  refutes  it.  Among  the  points  refuted  is  this,  that  the  defence 
of  rights  as  agreed  to  by  the  parties  is  the  only  reason  to  justify 
the  interference  of  the  State.  But  the  Pope  wishes  this  inter¬ 
ference  for  something  more,  which  is  not  agreed  to  by  the  parties 
— it  urges  of  itself.  And  what  can  this  be  if  not  that  minimum 


158  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


for  which  we  look — that  is  to  say,  a  decision  in  regard  to  the 
minimum  of  wages  ? 

As  for  the  exception  made  by  Cathrein,  “  if  there  is  danger  of 
wages  being  lowered  beyond  the  limits  of  justice,”  we  do  not 
know  why  it  should  be  an  exception,  and  not  the  rule.  For 
there  is  always  danger ;  and  just  because  such  danger  threatens 
the  common  good,  we  wish  to  see  it  removed  by  the  State.14 


Themes. — Labour  is  not  merchandise  ;  but,  in  part  at  least,  it  may  be 
valued  like  merchandise,  weighing  it  between  supply  and  demand — 
Labourers  being  disorganised,  there  is  need  for  a  labour  market,  in  which 
wages  would  be  free  from  the  chances  of  supply  and  demand  ;  the  laws  of 
labour  should  be  established  in  the  market ;  a  minimum  of  wages,  and  other 
conditions  of  justice,  should  be  secured  for  the  labourer. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

AGRICULTURAL  INDUSTRY. 

Section  I. — Systems  and  Contracts. 

The  ideal  of  agricultural  industry  would  be  that  of  a  working 
man,  who  cultivates  his  own  ground,  and  reaps  its  fruits  for  him¬ 
self  and  those  belonging  to  him.  But,  for  a  very  complex  variety 
of  causes,  this  cannot  be,  except  in  a  few  cases.  The  social  fact, 
as  it  exists,  is  that  of  landlords  and  tenants.  The  former  own 
the  ground,  and  have  need  of  tenants  for  its  cultivation.  The 
latter  have  need  of  those  who  will  trust  the  land  to  them,  on 
which  they  may  expend  their  labour.  Here  we  see  the  owner 
of  the  ship  and  the  crew  :  their  united  efforts  are  required  for  a 
successful  voyage. 

Various  systems  are  proposed  for  uniting  the  work  of  the 
agriculturist  with  the  land  of  the  proprietor,  so  that  the  well¬ 
being  of  both  parties  may  be  the  result.  There  are  three  principal 
systems,  of  which  we  ought  to  make  mention :  (i.)  that  of 
mezzadria  or  metayage ;  (ii.)  that  of  rent ;  and  (iii.)  that  of 
wages. 

On  these  various  forms  we  may  pronounce  the  same  judgment 
as  on  the  various  forms  of  government.  They  are  in  themselves 
all  good  :  each  one,  however,  may  be  abused  by  the  malice  or 
the  greed  of  men.  To  obviate  abuses,  various  contracts  are 
strengthened  with  special  conditions,  of  which  some  are  imposed 
(and  wisely  too)  by  law,  others  are  left  to  the  free  will  of  the 
contracting  parties.  In  making  such  engagements,  the  follow¬ 
ing  considerations  should  be  kept  in  mind  : — 

1.  Whatever  may  be  the  form  of  contract  to  which  the  owner 
and  the  worker  agree,  they  ought  to  remember  well  that  they  enter 
into  relations  not  only  economical,  but  also  moral — relations 
which,  besides  affecting  both,  have  a  great  influence  on  public 


MEZZADRIA  OR  METAYAGE 


159 


life.  And  this  is  nothing  but  the  application  of  a  general  principle. 
The  material  world  is  subordinated  to  the  moral,  and  the  man 
who  uses  the  former  for  the  attainment  of  the  ends  proposed  by 
the  Creator,  should  act  in  such  a  manner  that  a  wave,  as  large  as 
possible,  of  morality  and  religion  should  enter  the  ocean  of  social 
life. 

2.  The  productive  process  in  agricultural  industry  takes  a 
longer  time  than  in  other  industries.  The  capital  and  labour 
that  you  employ  on  a  field  or  a  vineyard  will  not  give  fruit  this 
year.  They  will  give  it  next  year,  and  for  a  series  of  years, 
longer  or  shorter  according  to  the  generosity  with  which  you 
treat  the  soil,  and  the  kind  of  cultivation  that  you  initiate  or 
promote. 

3.  It  is  necessary,  as  well  for  the  owner  as  for  the  worker, 
and  also  for  the  public,  that  capital  should  be  expended  in  the 
cultivation  of  land.  This  is  a  condition  required  that  the  soil 
may  act  like  a  machine  and  give  produce  for  all.  Left  to  itself, 
or  rather  subjected  to  an  impoverishing  treatment  (there  is  no 
want  of  modes),  it  wastes  its  resources,  and  enters  into  a  state 
of  barrenness,  not  to  be  remedied  in  a  single  year,  nor  easily. 

4.  We  must  take  into  account  that  the  net  produce  of  the  land 
cannot  be  separately  valued  every  year.  A  variety  of  causes 
influence  agricultural  production,  so  that  one  year  it  is  abundant, 
another  year  scarce.  It  even  happens  that  a  very  bad  year 
occurs  at  intervals  :  owing  to  the  inclemency  of  the  weather, 
the  harvest  is  totally  ruined,  and  the  net  produce  is  nothing. 
To  provide  for  this  calamity,  it  is,  therefore,  proper  to  take  an 
average  on  a  certain  number  of  harvests. 

5.  It  will  be  for  the  advantage  of  both  parties,  and  more  in 
accordance  with  the  designs  of  nature,  that  intercourse  between 
the  landlord  and  the  farmer  should  be  direct  or  immediate.  Hence 
the  exclusion,  as  far  as  possible,  of  speculators  and  middlemen. 
On  every  occasion  and  in  every  way,  let  the  proprietor  be  mindful 
of  that  Christian  patronage  which  he  owes  to  those  who  work 
under  him.  If  he  does  not  deal  immediately  with  them,  let  him 
assist  them  by  special  clauses ,  which  may  protect  them  from  the 
rapacity  of  an  agent.15 

Section  II. — Mezzadria  or  Metayage. 

Nature  and  labour  must  be  united  in  order  to  give  place  to 
that  process  which  ends  in  produce.  What  better  arrangement 
of  an  industry  than  that  of  bringing  together  the  owner  and  the 
worker  ?  This  is  one  of  the  results  of  the  contract  of  mezzadria 
or  metayage,  which  regards  the  owner  and  the  worker  as  partners 
in  a  company  ;  the  former  brings  the  capital  of  his  property,  and 
the  latter  the  capital  of  his  labour.  At  the  end  of  the  year  there 
is  a  distribution  of  the  produce. 

The  advantages  of  this  contract  are  evident.  The  owner  and 


160  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


the  worker,  having  a  community  of  interests,  find  themselves 
very  much  in  a  fraternal  state  of  mind.  They  are  companions  ; 
and  if  the  worker  pronounces  the  word  “  master/’  he  does  not 
feel  it  burning  on  his  lips.  They  run  the  same  risk ;  nor  will 
the  chance  of  an  unfavourable  season  fall  only  on  one.  It  is 
certainly  the  ideal  of  an  agricultural  contract.  “  Mezzadria, 
precisely  because  it  inspires  Christian  ideas,  is  the  agricultural 
contract  that  most  raises  the  legal  condition  of  the  cultivator, 
as  a  companion  of  the  owner  ;  that  most  favours  a  union  of 
classes,  co-ordinating  individual  to  social  interests ;  and  that 
most  secures  the  moral  and  civil  value  of  the  cultivator.  It  will 
always,  therefore,  remain  the  ideal  of  Catholic  economists.” 
(Mauri,  at  the  Congress  of  Padua.) 

Yet  we  must  not  close  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  even  this  contract 
often  becomes,  on  one  side  or  the  other,  ruinous,  and  therefore 
unadvisable  :  not  through  any  defect  of  the  contract,  but  through 
the  evil  minds  of  the  contracting  parties.  The  lot  of  the  mezzadro 
or  metayer  is  found  less  pleasant,  indeed  sad,  if  the  owner  lays 
on  him  some  heavy  conditions,  in  the  form  of  a  supplement  to 
the  contract,  requiring  so  many  days  of  actual  work,  lessening 
the  amount  of  crop  by  an  anticipated  percentage,  and  so  on. 
Even  the  lot  of  the  owner  may  be  unfortunate.  It  happens  when 
the  mezzadro,  not  guided  in  his  actions  by  the  light  of  a  Christian 
conscience,  lessens  the  quantity  of  crop  due  to  the  master;  ventures 
to  make  unjust  anticipations ;  in  short,  avails  himself  of  his 
position  as  companion  to  rob  with  a  safe  hand. 

The  history  of  mezzadria  is  very  ancient,  and  we  find  among 
the  customs  of  different  localities  a  great  variety  of  conditions. 
Many  of  these  no  longer  suit  the  requirements  of  our  time  and  the 
changed  methods  of  production.  Hence  the  necessity  of  revising 
agricultural  contracts  and  framing  them  to  meet  the  needs  of  the 
present  day.  This  task  of  revision  was  declared  in  the  Congress 
of  Taranto  to  be  a  duty  on  Catholics,  who,  in  some  places,  have 
complied  with  it,  especially  for  the  good  of  the  tillers.  A  Catholic 
journal,  treating  of  the  subject  in  a  very  sensible  article,  concludes 
thus : — 

“We  cannot  admit  a  contract  of  mezzadria  unless  it  has 
the  following  provisions  :  security  for  the  families  of  the  tillers, 
or  for  such  of  them  as  have  permanent  employment  on  the  land, 
that  they  will  receive  a  portion  of  the  produce  sufficient  for  the 
wants  of  life  and  labour  ;  compensation  for  lasting  improvements  ; 
safeguarding  of  the  productive  powers  of  the  soil ;  direct  co¬ 
operation,  as  much  as  possible,  with  the  owner,  in  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  the  farm. 

“  The  question  of  the  division  of  the  produce  thus  becomes 
a  secondary  thing.  A  tiller  who,  on  a  fertile  or  irrigated  farm  in 
Piedmont,  on  land  treated  according  to  the  Solari*  method, 

*Solari  is  the  name  of  a  celebrated  Italian  agriculturist, who  lately  employed 
chemistry  and  electricity  with  much  success  in  the  treatment  of  the  soil. — 
Trans. 


RENT 


161 


receives  the  third  part  of  the  produce,  will  have  much  more  per 
acre  than  a  tiller  who,  on  some  farms  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Gubbio,  receives  three-fourths  of  the  produce.  The  share 
should  never  be  disproportioned  to  the  labour ;  nor  can  the 
greater  fertility  of  a  farm  ever  be  by  itself  a  motive  for  lessening 
the  share  of  the  tiller. 

“  The  care  of  the  productive  powers  of  the  soil  requires  the 
aid  of  the  proprietor  with  capital,  and  his  direct  supervision, 
that  which  alone  recalls  land  proprietors  to  the  useful  exercise  of 
their  natural  duty  of  patronage. 

“  Examining  the  agricultural  contracts  of  different  districts 
by  the  light  of  these  principles,  Catholic  landowners,  well  inten- 
tioned,  will  be  the  first  to  acknowledge  in  what  points  and  in 
what  measure  such  contracts  should  be  revised — thus  cutting 
away  the  roots  of  social  agitation.  Custom,  if  it  sometimes 
becomes  law,  can  never  be  invoked  when  it  violates  justice  :  this 
would  be  contrary  to  our  character  as  Christians.”  (Avvenire 
d’ Italia.)™ 

Section  III. — Rent. 

A  system  universally  known  and  practised  is  that  of  rent. 
The  owner  lets  to  the  tenant  a  farm  to  be  cultivated  and 
reaped  by  him  alone,  and  receives  in  compensation  an  annual 
amount,  either  in  money  or  in  kind.  What  characterises  this 
contract  is  that  a  return  is  secured  to  the  owner,  and  the 
tenant  takes  on  himself  the  fortunate  or  unfortunate  result  of 
the  harvest. 

As  is  evident,  this  contract  presents  two  elements  economically 
appreciable.  One  of  these  is  in  favour  of  the  owner,  and  it  is  the 
certainty  of  a  moderate  return ;  the  other  is  in  favour  of  the 
tenant,  and  it  is  the  expectation  of  a  more  abundant  income. 
The  certainty  indemnifies  the  former  for  renouncing  a  larger 
return,  and  the  prospect  of  a  plentiful  crop  seems  to  the  latter 
a  good  reason  for  running  the  risk  of  the  event. 

As  in  mezzadria,  the  tenant  here  promises  himself  a  com¬ 
pensation  for  his  toil.  This  compensation  is  reckoned  by  the 
remainder  that  is  left  or  net  produce,  the  rent  being  deducted. 
But,  as  has  been  said,  this  remainder  cannot  be  valued  except  as 
an  average  on  a  number  of  years.  Therefore,  it  may  happen 
that  in  some  year,  for  many  reasons,  there  is  no  remainder.  Y et 
the  rent — by  the  nature  of  the  contract — is  equally  to  be  paid. 
The  tenant  should  therefore  be  in  a  position  to  pay  the  rent  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  life. 

Here  you  see  the  reason  why  rent,  differing  from  metayage, 
is  more  suited  for  those  places  in  which  country  people  enjoy  a 
certain  economic  power.  It  is  a  system  that  presents  some 
special  advantages.  The  tenant,  acquiring  a  certain  autonomy, 

L 


162 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


feels  that  he  is  not  a  slave.  He  works  the  ground  with  greater 
alacrity,  and  looking  forward  to  the  produce,  which  will  be  all 
his  own,  employs  every  art  to  make  it  abundant.  Often  this 
diligence  results  in  domestic  fortunes,  which  contribute  so  much 
to  the  prosperous  stability  of  families. 

It  is  necessary,  however,  that  special  conditions  should  accom- 
pan3^  the  contract,  so  that  it  may  not  become  ruinous  for  the 
tenant.  Above  all,  the  amount  of  rent  should  be  moderate. 
To  fix  it,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  tenant  has  to  live  by  the 
fruits  of  his  labour ;  that  the  quantity  of  produce  for  him  is  un¬ 
certain,  while  his  wants  are  certain;  that  he  should  have  the 
fruits  of  his  material  and  intellectual  labour,  and  also'  of  the 
capital  that  almost  every  day  he  must  expend  in  order  to  have 
profitable  cultivation. 

A  considerable  time  should  be  allowed  for  the  payment  of  rent. 
The  land  is  like  a  machine  that  does  not  give  all  its  produce 
in  a  single  year.  It  is  providentially  economic.  Being  well 
nourished,  it  serves  for  several  crops.  Now,  the  tenant,  who 
wishes  to  derive  profit  from  his  rented  farm,  should  give  it  good 
nourishment.  He  should  lay  out  on  it  a  capital  that  is  his  own. 
Even  labour  is  a  capital.  It  is  that  of  the  workingman,  and 
it  enters  in  a  manner  into  the  ground  ;  nor  is  it  wholly  exhausted 
by  one  harvest.  To  evict  the  tenant  from  the  farm  after  a  short 
time  is  to  prevent  him  from  reaping  the  fruits  of  capital  that  belong 
to  him  alone. 

That  clause  is  also  to  be  condemned  which  gives  the  owner 
the  right  of  evicting  the  tenant  for  any  failure  in  the  terms  agreed 
to.  At  least,  let  it  not  be  so  general.  The  failure  may  be  a 
thing  of  little  or  no  consequence,  and  it  may  not  depend  on  the 
will  of  the  tenant.  To  deprive  a  man  of  his  only  means  of 
existence  is  neither  justice  nor  charity. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  landowner  should,  by  appropriate 
conditions  in  the  contract,  safeguard  his  own  position.  Let  him 
not  be  content  with  a  rent  too  low.  The  tenant  might  then 
find  himself  rather  much  in  danger  of  neglecting  cultivation, 
of  yielding  to  sloth,  and  thus  the  land  would  not  bear  fruit — 
which  would  be  an  evil  for  all  parties.  Let  the  owner  often  visit 
his  fields  and  take  note  of  their  improvement.  Let  him  weigh 
well  the  material  and  moral  power  of  his  tenants  in  regard  to 
solvency,  and  let  him  look  for  reasonable  security.  Let  him  also 
endeavour  to  place  such  conditions  in  the  contract  as  will  promote 
religious  and  virtuous  habits  among  his  tenants. 

As  regards  security,  which,  in  the  great  disorders  of  our  times, 
may  justly  be  required  by  the  owner,  and,  on  the  other  side, 
cannot  be  given  by  many  of  the  tenants,  a  proposal  of  collective 
rent  has  been  providentially  made  by  Catholics.  It  works  in  this 
way.  An  association  of  tenants  is  formed,  which  charges  itself 
with  the  rent  of  an  extent  of  land  proportioned  to  the  amount 
of  capital  and  labour  that  it  feels  itself  able  to  employ.  The 


PERPETUAL  RENT 


163 


cultivation  can  then  be  made,  either  by  assigning  to  each  family 
of  the  tenants  a  portion  of  the  ground  with  all  its  relative  re¬ 
sponsibilities,  or  by  entering  on  a  common  cultivation  under  the 
guidance  of  a  technical  director  chosen  by  the  cultivators. 


Section  IV. — Perpetual  Rent. 

The  idea  of  uniting  a  landowner  and  a  tenant  for  ever  would 
appear  a  mere  poetic  fancy.  I  say  -poetic  fancy,  because  the 
miseries  with  which  humanity  is  afflicted  are  too  well  known. 
Yet  this  idea,  so  eminently  Christian,  was  for  many  centuries  a 
fact.  Even  in  our  own  times  it  still  exists  to  some  extent  by 
means  of  the  contract  that  bears  the  name  of  emphyteusis. 

This  is  a  contract  by  which  the  owner  of  an  immovable  property 
grants  for  a  long  time  or  for  ever  the  use  dominion*  of  it  at  an 
annual  fixed  rent.  The  characteristic  of  this  contract  is  that  it 
separates  the  direct  dominion,  which  remains  with  the  owner, 
from  the  use  dominion,  which  passes  to  the  tenant  or  emphyteuta . 

He  who  reflects  ever  so  little  will  at  once  see  the  economical 
and  social  advantages  of  this  contract.  The  emphyteuta  applies 
himself  with  great  courage  to  the  improvement  of  his  farm.  His 
ideal  is  always  to  increase  the  difference  between  the  net  produce 
that  it  gives  him  and  the  lease  rent  that  he  has  to  pay,  certain, 
as  he  is,  that  he  and  his  children  will  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their 
labour.  By  emphyteusis  the  social  function  of  land  property, 
that  of  providing  for  the  establishment  and  permanence  of  families 
in  a  particular  locality,  is  doubly  fulfilled,  the  emphyteutic 
farm  recognising  two  masters. 

The  economical  and  social  benefits  of  emphyteusis  were  ex¬ 
perienced  above  all  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries, 
when  it  seemed  the  only  contract  offering  a  means  of  reducing 
uncultivated  estates  to  a  remunerative  condition. 

Modern  legislation  has  unnaturalised  emphyteusis,  so  changing 
its  conditions  as  to  make  it  a  real  sale,  though  with  a  long 
indefinite  period  for  full  payment,  compensated  for  by  the  pay¬ 
ment  of  an  annual  rent. 

Since  the  benefits  of  emphyteusis  flow  from  it  as  emphyteusis, 
as  that  emphyteusis  which  the  Romans  and  the  men  of  the  Middle 
Ages  practised,  it  is  only  fair  to  conclude  that  the  emphyteusis 
of  our  days  cannot  bear  the  same  beneficent  fruits.  How 
necessary  would  it  be  in  this  case  to  return  to  antiquity  ! 17 

*  An  example  may  help  to  make  this  point  still  more  clear.  The  dominion 
of  use,  including  usufruct,  entitles  a  tenant  to  cultivate  a  farm,  and  to  enjoy 
all  its  fruits ;  but  the  dominion  of  ownership  of  the  farm  belongs  to  the 
landlord.  The  aforesaid  dominion  of  use,  when  hereditary,  is  called 
emphyteusis.  This  last  word  is  derived  from  the  Greek  emphuteuo,  **  I 
plant  or  improve  land.” — Trans. 


164 


THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


Section  V. — Rural  Wages. 

The  system  of  wages  is  very  general  in  agriculture.  The  land- 
owner,  taking  on  himself  all  the  risk  and  responsibility  of  his 
venture,  looks  forward  to  a  plentiful  gain,  and  from  day  to  day 
secures  for  the  labourers  a  produce  that  supplies  their  wants. 
This  contract  is  realised  in  several  ways.  Sometimes  the  owner 
hires  the  labourer  for  a  whole  year,  and  pays  him  in  a  certain 
quantity  of  food,  firewood,  &c.,  leaving  the  rest  of  the  family 
to  think  of  completing  by  their  labour  the  earnings  of  their  head. 
Sometimes  the  whole  family  are  engaged  by  the  owner  :  he 
makes  a  certain  allowance  for  each  person,  and  he  has  a  right 
that  all  their  work  shall  be  for  his  benefit. 

This  kind  of  contract,  if  ruled  by  justice,  offers  the  advantage 
of  securing  food  for  the  labourer,  and  also  of  enabling  him  to 
balance  his  domestic  accounts,  and  to  lay  by  some  savings  for 
future  needs.  It  establishes  relations  of  domesticity  and 
Paternity  between  the  owner  and  the  labourer,  when  both  enter 
into  it  with  the  honesty  of  a  Christian  conscience.  The  owner 
does  not  then  require  an  excessive  amount  of  work,  or  work  on 
festive  days ;  on  the  contrary,  he  allows  the  labourer  to  feel 
at  ease  as  a  Christian  man  and  a  member  of  a  family.  Let  the 
owner  bear  in  mind  that  if  the  labourer  has  promised  labour, 
yet  labour  is  not  an  article  of  merchandise,  nor  has  the  labourer 
bartered  his  soul,  his  dignity,  his  family.  In  so  far  he  has 
promised  labour  as  it  is  for  the  good  of  himself,  his  soul,  his 
family,  and  according  to  the  will  of  God. 

More  frequently  it  happens  that  employment  is  uncertain. 
The  labourers  are  not  sure  of  work,  either  on  land  or  in  any  other 
way.  At  every  turn  of  the  seasons,  they  must  look  out  for  new 
work  and  new  masters.  They  may  have  to  change  their  work 
and  their  masters  every  week,  perhaps  every  day.  Towards 
these  poor  men  the  master  risks  no  obligation,  not  even  that  of 
giving  them  work ;  so  that  there  is  no  resource  left  for  them  but 
to  stand  in  the  market-place.  This  is  the  place  where  labour  is 
regarded  as  a  real  article  of  merchandise.  In  large  towns,  at  an 
early  hour  in  the  morning,  the  labourers  may  be  seen  drawn  up 
in  lines  like  soldiers,  with  their  iron  tools  on  their  shoulders — 
offering  their  services,  and  wrangling  as  if  everyone  strove  to 
see  who  could  lower  the  wages  most.  The  amount  of  wages 
is  thus  tossed  about  on  the  waves  of  demand  and  supply,  and 
there  it  rests  where  the  strongest  wave  leaves  it.  If  labour  is. 
urgent,  and  many  men  are  needed,  the  amount  rises  and  the 
labourers  are  hired.  If  labour  is  not  urgent  and  many  men  are 
not  needed,  the  amount  falls,  and  a  good  many  are  left  idle  in  the 
market-place. 

It  is  easily  understood  that  matters  cannot  prosper  in  this  way. 
The  labour  market  is  a  social  disgrace.  Labour,  if  it  is  to  be 


TRANSPOET  OF  GOODS 


165 


■viewed  as  a  merchandise,  is  yet  a  merchandise  so  peculiar  and 
precious  that  it  essentially  differs  from  all  other  merchandise. 
To  fix  its  price  then  by  the  sole  criterion  of  demand  and  supply, 
and  to  call  that  just,  is  to  forget  altogether  the  purpose  for  which 
God  intended  labour,  and  to  abandon  every  idea  of  justice. 

Accordingly,  let  us  conclude  : — 

1.  Rural  wages  are  certainly  not  of  themselves  to  be  con¬ 
demned.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  an  advantage  to  those 
labourers  who  cannot  enter  into  the  contract  either  of  mezzadria 
or  rent. 

2.  It  is  desirable  that  fixed  permanent  wages  should  be  sub¬ 
stituted  for  small  daily  payments. 

3.  The  Christian  patronage  that  a  master  should  practise  in 
regard  to  his  dependants  requires  that  he  should  have  a  special 
consideration  for  their  wants  and  fatigues.  Let  him  be  eager 
to  give  them  employment,  and  indulgent  in  rewarding  them, 
so  that  they  who,  in  the  hour  of  their  master’s  need,  are  all  heart 
and  hand  for  him,  may  feel,  in  the  hour  of  their  own  need,  that 
he  has  a  heart  for  them. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

COMMERCIAL  INDUSTRY. 

Section  I. — Transport  of  Goods. 

Life  has  a  chequered  course.  The  face  of  the  earth  is  immense, 
and  its  productions  are  wonderfully  various.  Climates  are 
different,  vegetables  are  different,  minerals  are  different.  It 
does  not  follow  that  the  man  who  lives  in  one  place,  and  wishes 
to  avail  himself  of  the  productions  of  another,  must  go  thither. 
The  shoulders  of  men,  the  backs  of  animals,  the  waves  of  the  sea, 
are  admirable  means  of  transport.  This  is  commerce. 

A  question  may  be  asked  :  is  commerce  productive  ?  Some 
say  no  ;  because  it  does  not  impart  any  new  utility  to  the  thing 
that  it  transports.  A  little  observation,  however,  will  decide 
for  the  affirmative. 

It  is  true  that  change  of  place  does  not  introduce  into  an  article 
transported  any  new  element  that  substantially  increases,  lessens, 
or  modifies  it.  Let  us,  however,  remember  that  the  value  does 
not  lie  in  the  article,  but  in  its  relation  with  our  mind,  which 
regards  it  as  needful  or  useful.  This  being  granted,  everyone 
understands  that  an  article  may  have  no  utility  whatever  in  one 
place,  and,  therefore,  be  of  no  value  (because  there  is  a  super¬ 
abundance  of  it  or  no  one  cares  about  it),  and  in  another  place 
it  may  have  great  value.  The  art  by  which  it  passes  from  the 
former  to  the  latter  place  is  that  which  puts  it  into  the  condition 
of  having  value.  This  art  is,  therefore,  a  productive  industry. 


166  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


“  Judging  superficially,  it  may  appear  that  the  gain  of  the 
merchant  is  not  justifiable.  But  we  must  consider  (i.)  that  some 
producers  have  often  need  to  sell  in  large  quantities,  while  pur¬ 
chasers  have  the  convenience  of  being  able  to  buy  in  small 
quantities ;  (ii.)  that  the  times  seldom  correspond  when  the 
former  are  ready  to  sell  and  the  latter  to  buy  ;  and  (iii.)  that 
producers  and  consumers,  being  seldom  much  acquainted,  do  not 
know  how  to  come  into  contact  for  the  transaction  of  business. 
Commerce,  which  removes  these  difficulties,  is,  therefore,  a  useful 
intermediary.  In  point  of  fact,  wherever  industries  of  all  kinds 
are  most  advanced,  there  are  large  commercial  houses,  in  which 
different  products  are  collected,  and  from  which  they  are  after¬ 
wards  distributed/'  (Agnelli.) 


Section  II. — Exchange  ;  Value  ;  Money  ;  Price. 

If  every  man  were  provided  with  all  that  might  be  useful  to 
him,  the  notion  of  value  in  exchange  would  have  no  existence. 
It  would  never  be  necessary  that  a  man  should  deprive  himself 
of  one  thing  in  order  to  procure  another.  But  such  are  the 
conditions  in  which  man  lives  that  he  desires  many  things  besides 
what  he  requires.  Hence  the  origin  of  exchange  or  barter,  by 
which  a  man  gives  of  his  superabundance  that  he  may  obtain 
what  he  wants. 

The  reason  for  barter  is  the  utility  of  things.  But  not  all  things 
that  are  useful  are  bartered  :  only  those  which  have  value. 
Barter,  therefore,  is  an  exchange  of  values.  The  values  that  are 
exchanged  ought  to  be  equal ;  otherwise,  there  would  be  in  the 
hands  of  one  of  the  parties  a  portion  of  value  without  title. 

Where  shall  we  find  the  measure  of  value  ?  The  measure 
of  a  quantity  ought  to  be  a  unit  of  the  same  species,  constant, 
pot  subject  to  easy  or  notable  variations.  But  value  is  essentially 
variable,  as  its  constituents  are  variable,  and  the  conditions  that 
create  it  are  variable.  To  think,  therefore,  of  a  precise  absolute 
measure  of  value  is  a  mistaken  idea. 

It  is  necessary  to  be  content  with  an  approximate  relative 
measure,  taking  as  the  unit  of  comparison  that  value  which 
is  least  subject  to  change.  Such  is  the  value  of  the  precious 
metals,  from  which  money  is  coined. 

It  is  proper,  however,  to  observe  that  the  introduction  of  money 
into  exchange  was  anterior  to  the  monetary  use  of  those  metals. 
Before  thinking  of  the  value  of  money,  a  sign  was  thought  of. 
The  barter  of  merchandise  in  kind  presented,  from  the  earliest 
days  of  social  life,  many  difficulties  in  execution,  and  a  useless 
expenditure  of  force.  The  idea  then  sprang  up  of  a  merchandise 
that,  by  common  consent,  would  represent  all  sorts  of  merchan¬ 
dise,  and  that  would,  so  to  say,  bring  all  sorts  of  merchandise 
close  to  hand.  Such  was  the  origin  of  money,  which,  as  a 


EXCHANGE;  VALUE;  MONEY;  PRICE 


167 


simple  representative  sign,  may  well  be  formed  from  a  thing  of 
little  or  no  value.*  Very  soon,  however,  it  was  understood 
how  money  could  be  more  useful,  if,  besides  having  a  nominal 
value,  it  had  also  a  real  value.  Thus  the  introduction  of  metals 
into  monetary  affairs  is  most  ancient. 

For  simple  barter,  the  contract  of  buying  and  selling  was 
substituted,  at  least  in  common  practice.  It  denotes  the  exchange 
of  a  certain  quantity  of  merchandise  for  a  certain  quantity  of 
money.  Sale,  if  well  considered,  has  not  a  confined  scope,  but 
is  directed  to  other  sales,  until  an  exchange  is  effected.  Hence 
Say  observes  that  sale  is  a  half  exchange,  and  Brants  calls  it  a 
fraction  of  exchange. 

The  portion  of  money  that  is  given  in  purchase  takes  the 
name  of  price.  It  is  substituted  for  the  value,  and  is  an  expression 
of  the  value.  The  price  is  normal  or  current,  and  under  either 
form  is  subject  to  the  same  laws  as  value  :  (i.)  the  current  price 
of  merchandise  is  directly  proportional  to  the  demand  and 
inversely  proportional  to  the  supply  ;  (ii.)  the  normal  or  natural 
price  is  regulated  by  the  cost  of  production,  which  tends  to  an 
equality.  We  may  add  another  law  :  (iii.)  the  current  price 
fluctuates  about  the  natural  price,  as  its  centre. 

The  condition  of  the  market  may  raise  the  current  price  above 
the  natural,  and  thus  favour  the  first  producers ;  but  the  profit 
that  they  make  very  soon  attracts  others  to  engage  in  the  same 
production.  Thus  the  supply  is  increased,  until  the  current 
price  is  re- adjusted  to  the  normal. 

In  like  manner,  if,  by  a  particular  event — for  instance,  the 
offer  of  an  equivalent  commodity — the  current  price  falls  below 
the  normal,  then  the  number  of  producers  will  be  lessened,  the 
supply  will  be  diminished,  and  the  price  will  be  recomposed. 

Christian  economists  have  another  term  for  price.  They  call 
it  “  just  ”  when  it  corresponds  with  the  estimation  of  the  value 
in  which  anything  is  generally  held.  The  classical  or  liberal 
school  does  not  admit  the  possibility  of  an  unjust  price.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  it,  all  justice  is  in  the  hands  of  the  contracting  parties  : 
whatever  price  they  agree  to  is  just. 

We  admit  not  only  the  intervention  of  conscience  in  fixing  a 
just  price,  but  also  in  certain  cases  the  intervention  of  the  State, 
(i.)  Let  the  State  prohibit  private  monopolies ;  that  is,  of  those  who 
gather  into  their  possession  a  whole  produce,  so  as  to  sell  it  at  an 
exorbitant  price,  (ii.)  When  producers,  taking  advantage  of  a 
peculiar  condition  of  the  market,  raise  too  much  the  price  of  goods 
that  are  of  the  utmost  necessity,  the  State  can  and  should  interfere 
to  fix  the  maximum  price.  No  one  has  a  right  to  promote  his  own 
interests  with  injury  to  the  poor  and  needy. 

*  Bank  notes  or  postal  orders,  for  example,  are  in  themselves  only  paper. — 
Trans. 


168  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


Section  III. — Value  of  Money. 

By  value  we  here  mean  the  same  thing  as  when  speaking 
of  other  merchandise.  We  showed  that  value  is  the  capability 
of  one  article  in  regard  to  exchange  for  another.  The  value  of 
money  will  be  its  power  to  purchase  goods.  This  being  granted, 
it  is  easily  understood  that  money  has  a  two-fold  value — namely, 
the  value  of  the  material  of  which  it  is  composed,  or  the  real 
value,  and  the  value  of  an  intermediary  merchandise,  which  is 
called  the  conventional  value. 

The  former  is  not  reckoned,  except  in  some  region  where  money 
is  considered  for  the  material  of  wdiich  it  is  composed.  However, 
it  is  the  foundation  of  the  latter,  and  it  ought  to  be  so.  Money 
that  has  not  a  real  value  is  a  cheat  for  him  who  does  not  know 
what  it  is  ;  offered  by  way  of  convention,  it  is  an  illusion,  to  which 
no  people  submit.  If  a  man,  after  a  series  of  bargains,  finds 
himself  in  possession  of  coin  that  has  a  real  value,  he  has  some¬ 
thing  ;  if  the  coin  has  not  a  real  value,  he  has  nothing.  To 
say  the  least,  it  appears  strange.  Hence  it  is  proper  that  the 
nominal  should  coincide  as  much  as  possible  with  the  real  value. 

The  conventional  value*  is  certainly  what  gives  a  formal 
character  to  money,  and  makes  it  capable  of  being  what  it  is — 
a  representative  for  all  kinds  of  merchandise.  And  this  value, 
according  to  definition,  serves  only  for  one  purpose — exchange. 
With  this  service  there  is  money  ;  without  it,  none.  Hence  it 
comes  that  money,  as  such,  has  only  one  use — a  use  that  consists 
in  its  consumption,  that  is,  in  its  employment.  Money,  therefore, 
has  only  one  scope — exchange.  Exchanged,  it  is  consumed  ; 
it  no  longer  exists  for  him  who  had  it,  it  exists  for  him  who  has  it. 
As  then  a  thing  is  said  to  be  productive  when  it  is  susceptible 
of  a  value  different  from  that  which  it  has  directly,  money,  which 
has  only  one  value,  that  of  exchange,  is  essentially  unproductive. 

The  value  of  anything  being  its  power  of  acquisition,  it  follows 
that  the  value  of  money,  like  that  of  all  other  commodities,  is 
variable.  It  does  not  avail  to  say  that  a  piece  of  money  has 
always  the  same  name — for  instance,  a  shilling  or  a  crown.  Here 
we  do  not  treat  of  names,  but  of  things.  The  value  of  money 
is  reckoned  from  the  quantity  of  goods  that  can  be  acquired  by 
it.  If  yesterday  I  bought  a  kid  for  five  shillings,  and  to-day  it 
is  worth  eight,  this  is  because  money  has  fallen  in  value.  Some 
one  may  say  :  No,  it  is  because  the  kid  has  risen  in  value.  The 
expression  is  reversed,  but  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  The 

*  Although  twenty  shillings  will  buy  as  much  as  a  sovereign,  yet  the 
metal  in  twenty  shillings  is  worth  only  about  the  third  part  of  a  sovereign. 
A  silver  shilling  is  in  substance  worth  about  four  pence.  In  like  manner 
the  metal  in  240  pence,  instead  of  being  worth  a  sovereign,  is  scarcely  worth 
the  fourth  part  of  a  sovereign. — Trans. 


VALUE  OF  MONEY 


169 


idea  of  value  is  a  relation — the  relation  of  two  interchangeable 
things.  In  the  act  of  changing,  there  is  an  equality.  If  the 
conditions  of  the  things  change,  this  means  that  their  value  is 
changed  :  that  of  one  is  increased,  that  of  the  other  is  diminished. 
Suppose  that  yesterday  I  bought  three  loaves  for  sixpence,  and 
to-day  I  get  only  one  for  sixpence  :  this  means  that  the  money 
which  was  yesterday  worth  three  loaves  is  to-day  worth  only  one. 

Money,"  says  Say,  “  is  worth  what  it  buys,  and  is  worth  neither 
more  nor  less." 

Hence  the  law  :  The  price  of  merchandise  is  inversely  propor¬ 
tional  to  the  real  value  of  money*  This  law  is  a  consequence  of 
that  of  supply  and  demand.  The  value  of  money  being  increased, 
there  is  a  less  supply  of  it,  and  a  greater  supply  of  the  corresponding 
merchandise. 

Many  Catholic  economists  admit,  in  our  present  economical 
conditions,  a  third  value  of  money — namely,  a  value  virtually 
productive.  Money  is  virtually  every  kind  of  merchandise, 
because  every  kind  of  merchandise  can  be  procured  with  it.  He 
who  has  money  can  buy  merchandise  to  be  employed  in  production, 
and  the  productive  virtue  of  the  merchandise  is  virtually  contained 
in  the  money.  The  consequence  is  that,  when  a  man  lends  money 
to  serve  as  a  capital  for  production,  he  has  a  right  to  require 
interest.  Let  us  hear  Antoine  : — 

“  Money  taken  on  loan  can,  in  special  economical  circumstances 
of  the  time,  represent  or  not  things  whose  use  is  not  distinct 
from  their  substance.  At  one  period,  most  of  those  who  take 
it  on  loan  do  so  in  order  to  provide  better  for  their  domestic 
wants  or  their  pleasures  ;  at  another,  for  the  needs  of  industry 
or  commerce,  that  is,  to  exchange  it  for  things  whose  use  is  distinct 
from  their  dominion.  Coin  is  nothing  but  a  representative  of 
saleable  things,  and  has  no  other  utility  for  the  borrower  than  that 
of  the  things  which  it  represents  to  him. 

“  In  the  former  case,  money,  because  it  represents  things 
whose  use  is  not  distinct  from  their  substance,  has  not,  at  ieast 
generally,  any  utility  distinct  from  consumption.  Hence  every 
agreement  by  which  interest  is  required  for  the  sum  lent  is  unjust. 
In  the  latter  case,  as  it  is  not  unjust  to  require,  besides  the  capital, 
a  compensation  for  the  service  rendered,  so  it  is  not  unjust,  as 
we  have  said,  to  claim,  in  addition  to  the  restoration  of  the  thing, 
a  payment  that  corresponds  to  rent. 

“  For  the  rest,  we  shall  not  pause  to  demonstrate  that,  in  the 
present  economic  order,  money  is  the  equivalent  of  an  endless 
multitude  of  things  productive  of  benefits.  Once  more,  this 
would  be  to  question  the  reign  of  modern  capitalism." 

*  Lest  the  meaning  of  this  law  should  not  be  obvious  to  all,  it  may  be  well 
to  observe  that  the  higher  the  price  of  anything,  the  lower  is  the  value  of 
money,  because  a  larger  sum  of  money  is  required  to  buy  it ;  and  the  lower 
the  price  of  anything,  the  higher  is  the  value  of  money,  because  a  smaller 
sum  of  money  suffices  to  buy  it. — Trans. 


170  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


Section  IV. — Merchants  ;  Profits  ;  Wholesale  and  Retail 

Business. 

Merchandise  is  produced  by  the  hands  of  a  man,  and  it  is  then 
distributed  into  the  hands  of  a  hundred  or  a  thousand  men  for 
consumption.  But  this  distribution  is  not  immediate.  The 
merchandise,  before  reaching  the  hands  of  the  consumer,  passes 
through  the  hands  of  one  or  more  intermediaries,  who  are  thus 
carriers  of  it,  and  who  are  called  merchants. 

These  are  true  producers.  Although,  as  we  have  already  said, 
they  carry  the  merchandise  such  as  it  leaves  the  hands  of  the 
producer,  yet  they  place  it  in  a  state  to  be  useful,  with  advantage 
both  to  the  producer  and  the  consumer.  They  have,  therefore, 
a  right  to  a  gain  or  profit.  This  gain  ought  to  be  realised  on  the 
conditions  that  accompany  contracts  of  buying  and  selling. 

They  ought  to  buy  at  one  price  and  sell  at  a  higher.  Their 
gain,  therefore,  ought  to  be  made  at  the  expense  of  the  producer 
and  the  consumer,  for  whose  advantage  they  exist  and  work. 
Thus  commerce  or  traffic  is  found  to  be  a  field  of  honest  and 
lawful  gain,  on  which  many  families  prosper. 

“  But  if  the  service  rendered  by  commerce  is  useful,  yet  it  is 
not  gratuitous.  Everyone  can  ascertain  the  difference  of  price 
between  that  which  is  bought  directly  from  the  producer  and  that 
which  is  bought  from  the  vendor.  The  greater  the  number  of 
intermediaries  the  higher  does  this  difference  rise  :  it  may  arrive 
at  a  very  large  percentage.  Therefore  the  tendency  to  reduce 
as  much  as  possible  the  number  of  intermediaries  is  justified.” 
(Agnelli,  Nozicmi,  &c.,  p.  39). 

But  even  here  it  is  necessary  that  the  living  breath  of  honesty, 
the  spirit  of  Christianity,  should  animate  commerce,  so  that  it 
may  not  be  injurious,  but  useful,  to  civil  society.  Contracts 
ought  to  be  made  with  sincerity,  on  the  part  of  the  seller  and  also 
on  that  of  the  buyer.  Blind  speculation  has  unnaturalised 
commerce,  which,  instead  of  being  for  the  benefit  of  all,  is  so 
managed  as  to  make  the  opulence  of  a  few.  The  art  of  devoting 
oneself  to  commerce  has  become  the  art  of  turning  oneself  every 
way. 

The  profit  of  the  merchant  is  lawful  indeed,  if  moderate,  if 
without  fraud.  The  man  who  gives  himself  to  commerce  with 
unbridled  conscience  thinks  only  of  making  a  fortune  for  himself 
as  soon  as  possible.  If  he  sees  the  chance  of  some  extraordinary 
profit,  he  does  not  hesitate.  Rather  he  consoles  himself,  saying  : 
“  It  is  all  business.”  And  this  sort  of  business  often  means  the 
ruin  of  one  or  more  families.  The  world  is  full  of  such  examples. 

Two  classes  of  merchants  present  themselves  in  the  market — 
the  wholesale  and  the  retail.  The  former  come  more  in  contact 
with  producers,  the  latter  with  consumers.  Both  are  useful ; 
but  too  great  a  number  of  them  is  injurious  to  all.  This  is  only 


CO-OPEBATIVE  SOCIETIES 


171 


too  clear.  When  merchandise,  going  its  rounds,  gives  some 
profit  to  very  many,  it  reaches  the  consumer  at  an  exorbitant 
price.  This  man  will  then  buy  in  smaller  quantity,  and  the  injury 
passes  on  to  the  producer,  who  will  find  less  demand  for  his  goods. 
Still  the  consumer  casts  an  eye  on  them,  wishing  to  have  them  ; 
but  his  means  are  exhausted.  He  is  unable  to  procure  them, 
and  this  want  is  a  loss  to  other  industries.  It  is  evident,  there¬ 
fore,  that  as  a  consequence  of  having  a  multitude  of  small 
merchants  or  traders,  the  prices  of  goods  will  become  high. 


Section  V. — Co-operative  Societies. 

The  excessive  number  of  small  merchants  who  speculate  on 
the  space  that  divides  the  consumer  from  the  producer  or  from  the 
wholesale  merchant  has  given  rise  to  two  great  evils. 

One  is  the  adulteration  of  merchandise.  Either  the  producer, 
to  save  expense  in  cost,  or  the  intermediary,  to  create  a  new 
source  of  gain,  can  adulterate  merchandise  in  a  thousand  ways. 
They  then  require  payment  for  what  it  ought  to  be,  not  for  what 
it  is.  Oftentimes  the  adulteration  injures  the  consumer  not  only 
in  his  purse,  but  also  in  his  health,  which  is  affected  by  unwhole¬ 
some  or  poisonous  ingredients. 

The  other  evil,  already  pointed  out,  is  that  of  charging  too 
much. 

These  two  evils  are  felt  chiefly  by  the  poorer  classes,  who, 
not  having  good  means,  give  the  preference  to  wares  of  a  low 
price. 

With  a  view  to  protect  such  people  from  these  two  evils,  Co¬ 
operative  Societies  have  been  established.  They  have  the  effect 
of  lessening  very  much  the  number  of  intermediaries,  and  of 
bringing  the  producer  more  into  contact  with  the  consumer. 
If  these  Societies  are  guided  and  governed  by  honest,  conscientious 
men,  they  can  be  a  source  of  notable  gain  for  the  members  enrolled 
in  them.  Catholics  have  established  some  of  them  here  and  there 
amid  the  blessings  of  the  poor. 


Themes. — The  value  of  wealth  can  be  neatly  defined  by  its  power  of 
acquisition — It  is  not  possible  that  the  value  of  all  wealth  should  rise  or  fall 
at  the  same  time  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  possible  that  at  the  same 
time  there  may  be  an  increase  or  decrease  of  prices — Every  variation  in  the 
value  of  money  carries  with  it  an  inversely  proportional  variation  of  price. 


CONCLUSION. 

Here  we  pause.  Not  at  all  imagining  that  we  have  finished 
a  complete  treatise  on  the  matter  in  hand ;  but  because,  having 
regard  to  the  object  of  our  work,  it  seems  to  us  that  there  is 


172  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


no  other  road  that  we  need  travel.  We  have  laid  down  principles, 
with  arguments,  from  which  anyone  desirous  of  further  knowledge 
can  proceed  to  extensive  investigations.  The  first  steps  being 
made  from  these  pages,  the  road  will  at  once  open  out  to  more 
ample  studies. 

If  others  are  pleased  also  to  pause,  we  venture  to  hope  that 
such  ideas  as  they  have  here  met  will  help  them  to  live  without 
being  undone  in  society,  which  is  troubled  with  so  many  contests. 
Making  themselves  masters  of  these  ideas,  they  will  be  able  to 
join  in  paving  the  way  for  the  triumph  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
in  winch  alone  is  to  be  found  the  welfare  of  individuals  and  of 
nations. 


‘T 


NOTES  TO  THE  SECOND  PART. 


Note  1,  p.  103. — This  mode  of 
considering  economical  laws  comes  in 
a  direct  line  from  that  humanism 
which  in  the  18th  century  was 
held  as  a  dogma  by  philosophers  of 
the  Rousseau  stamp.  For  them 
nature  was  everything  :  it  had  made 
no  mistake,  and  it  could  make  none. 

From  like  philosophy,  Smith  and 
Benson  went  on  to  assert  that  men 
are  naturally  bound  by  the  law 
of  solidarity,  and  Bastiat  derived 
his  Economical  Harmonies — hideous 
harmonies,  which  sound  sorrowfully 
in  the  ears  of  so  many  poor  people  ! 

The  19th  century  gave  birth  to  a 
philosophy  that  has  the  same 
consequences.  Spencer  and  Darwin 
declare  a  struggle  for  existence 
natural  in  the  world ;  in  which 
struggle  it  is  too  evident  that 
triumph  goes  with  the  strong  and 
defeat  with  the  weak.  If  nature 
wishes  things  so,  let  it  alone,  let 
it  pass.  If  it  is  so,  says  an 
Englishman,  if  the  laws  of  the 
struggle  for  existence  and  the 
survival  of  the  strongest  should  be 
applied  as  strictly  to  human  society 
as  to  plants  and  animals,  then,  let 
us  say  it  plainly,  Christianity,  which 
comes  to  the  aid  of  the  poor  and 
weak,  and  which  stretches  out  its 
hand  to  sinners,  is  mere  folly. 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  spoke  in  vain,  or 
rather  He  stood  up  against  the  un¬ 
changeable  laws  of  nature.  (See 
Gregoire,  Le  Pape,  &c.,  p.  108.) 

Note  2,  p.  115. — Against  the 
theory  just  stated  with  regard  to 
ownership,  there  is  an  objection 
made,  which,  in  appearance,  is 
rather  formidable.  It  runs  thus  : — 
Is  it  or  is  it  not  true  that  God  gave 
the  earth  to  the  human  race,  in 
order  to  make  use  of  it  ?  To  assert 
that  a  man  can  become  master  even 
of  a  hand’s-breadth  of  land,  and  i 


can  keep  it  from  others,  is  to  say 
that  God  created  that  hand’s- 
breadth  for  him  alone.  Can  this  be 
maintained  ? 

The  objection  is  propped  up  by 
some  arguments  from  the  Bible, 
and  even  by  the  text.  The  earth  He 
has  given  to  the  children  of  men 
(Ps.  cxiii.  16).  Thus  the  difficulty 
takes  the  force  of  that  Babylonian 
confusion  of  ideas  on  which  it  rests. 

We  answer.  It  is  true  that  God 
gave  to  all  the  human  race  every 
hand’s-breadth  of  land,  and  that 
He  did  not  create  even  a  thumb’ s- 
breadth  for  any  one  man  alone  ; 
and  that  therefore  the  human  race 
has  a  right  to  every  particle  of  the 
soil.  This  universal  right  does  not, 
however,  exclude  a  particular  right. 
The  universal  right  can  only  be  for 
use,  which  certainly  is  not  denied 
to  any  one  who  observes  the  con¬ 
ditions  intended  by  the  Creator  for 
this  use.  Rather,  this  universal 
right  confirms  and  demands  a  par¬ 
ticular  right  of  ownership.  Because, 
as  has  just  been  shown  by  us,  there 
could  not  be  an  abundance  of  pro¬ 
duce  for  universal  use  without 
private  ownership.  We  may  here 
apply  the  old  saying  :  “  The  big 
pot  is  the  one  that  boils  worst.”  * 

Weiss  speaks  well  on  this 
subject : — 

“  No  individual  has  been  imme¬ 
diately  invested  by  God,  or  as  is 
too  commonly  said,  by  nature,  with 
the  ownership  of  this  or  that  special 
part  of  the  goods  of  the  earth.  Only 
humanity  in  general  has  been  placed 
in  possession  of  a  real  right  to  the 
whole.  The  individual  may  have 
a  personal  right  to  a  part  of  the 
whole  ;  still  it  is  a  personal,  not  a 
real,  right.  It  is  only  when  fie 
succeeds,  without  injury  to  justice, 
in  turning  possibility  into  reality, 
claim  into  appropriation,  that  his 


*  The  meaning  of  this  Italian  adage  seems  to  be  that,  if  different  kinds 
of  meat  and  vegetables  are  put  into  one  large  pot,  they  will  nob  be  so  well 
cooked  as  if  they  were  put  into  several  small  pots.  So  land,  when  held  by 
many  persons,  will  be  better  cared  for  than  when  held  by  only  one. — Trans, 


174  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


right  to  anything  becomes  a  right 
in  fact.  But  he  does  not  thereby 
deprive  society  of  what  previously 
belonged  to  it  as  a  whole.  Nor  does 
he,  because  he  makes  something  his 
own,  cease  to  be  a  member  of 
society ;  on  the  contrary,  he  is 
bound  to  society  by  new  chains. 

.  .  .  When  a  man  has  lawfully 

and  actually  acquired  the  ownership 
of  certain  goods,  it  is  not  at  all 
necessary  that  society  should  re¬ 
nounce  its  own  rights.”  (P.  125.) 

The  encyclical  also  answers  this 
objection  very  clearly  : — 

“  That  God  has  given  the  earth 
for  use  and  enjoyment  to  the  whole 
human  race  is  not  at  all  opposed  to 
the  right  of  private  ownership. 
For  God  granted  the  earth  to  men 
in  general,  not  that  He  wished  them 
to  have  a  promiscuous  dominion  of 
it,  but  inasmuch  as  He  assigned  no 
portion  of  it  to  any  person  in  par¬ 
ticular,  leaving  that  to  be  fixed  by 
the  industry  of  men  and  the  laws  of 
different  peoples.  Moreover,  the 
earth,  though  divided  among  in¬ 
dividuals,  remains,  nevertheless,  for 
the  service  and  benefit  of  all, 
because  there  is  no  one  in  the  world 
who  is  not  fed  by  it.  Those  who 
are  without  property,  supply  for  it 
by  labour  ;  so  that  it  may  be  truly 
said  that  the  universal  means  of 
providing  for  the  wants  of  life 
consist  in  labour — either  on  one’s 
own  land,  or  at  some  industry,  the 
payment  for  which  is  derived  from 
the  fruits  of  the  earth,  or  from  what 
is  exchanged  for  them.”  ( Rerum 
novarum.) 

Note  3,  p.  122. — It  is  the  thought 
of  early  writers,  such  as  Seneca, 
Pliny,  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  &c., 
that  the  ruin  of  the  Roman  Empire 
was  to  be  attributed,  among  other 
things,  to  the  inhuman  system  of 
large  landed  estates.  Fancy — 104 
years  before  Christ,  2,000  masters 
had  the  whole  Roman  territory  in 
their  hands.  (Cicero,  De  Officiis,  2, 
25,  73.)  Under  Nero,  as  Pliny 
relates,  half  the  province  of  Africa 
was  the  property  of  six  men  ! 

Note  4,  p.  124. — In  August,  1893, 
the  Abbe  Lemire  presented  himself 
as  a  candidate  for  election  with  the 


following  programme  : — “  I  wish 
that  the  house  and  garden,  occupied 
by  every  workman  and  his  family, 
and  acquired  by  his  labour,  should 
be  protected  from  sequestration, 
and  should  be  free  from  imposts 
and  from  the  expenses  of  succes¬ 
sion.” 

Note  5,  p.  124. — To  know  that  in 
Italy  the  holdings  expropriated  by 
the  revenue  authorities  from  1888 
to  1893  (only  five  years)  for  non¬ 
payment  of  taxes  rose  to  20,000  lire, 
is  a  thing  that  shocks.  How  many 
owners  then  became  poor  labourers  ! 

Note  6,  p.  125. — Rural  Unions  are- 
much  the  same  as  Trade  Unions,  to 
which  they  stand  in  the  relation  of 
species  to  genus. 

In  the  great  abandonment  and 
distress  of  the  agricultural  classes, 
there  ought  to  be  solicitude  for  them. 
It  might  appear  that  country  people, 
by  their  position,  as  mostly  small 
farmers,  and  especially  as  honest, 
timid,  far  removed  from  the  dis¬ 
turbance  of  new  ideas,  would  be 
insensible  to  the  evils  of  isolation 
created  by  liberalism.  But  facts 
prove  that,  if  a  little  later,  yet  no 
less  bitterly,  the  waves  of  affliction 
break  over  them,  and  the  storm 
rages  in  the  midst  of  those  fields 
which  were  formerly  so  quiet  and 
so  silent. 

There  are  here  immense  multi¬ 
tudes  of  poor  people  who,  all  their 
life  long,  know  that  they  belong  to 
*civil  society  only  because  the  ex¬ 
chequer  is  mindful  of  them  ;  because 
the  liberal  or  illiberal  trader  pre¬ 
pares  unpleasant  surprises  for  them  ; 
because  a  new  storm,  which  is  called 
a  crisis,  bursts  on  their  little  field 
or  vineyard ;  because  a  rumour  is 
come  to  their  ears  that  prayers  and 
religious  instruction  have  been  pro¬ 
hibited  in  the  schools,  and  so  on. 
All  this  means,  for  the  peasantry, 
that  everything  most  dear  to  them 
must  be  sacrificed  according  to  the 
pleasure  of  those  who  command. 

To  bring  these  country  people 
into  concrete  form,  to  put  them  in 
such  a  position  that  their  influence 
will  tell  on  public  life,  is  social 
charity  and  justice.  This  is  the 
object  of  the  Rural  Unions. 


NOTES  TO  THE  SECOND  PART 


175 


A  model  draft  of  Statutes  for 
Rural  Unions  was  approved  of  by 
the  Catholic  Congress  of  Pavia. 

Note  7,  p.  127. — The  theory  of 
labour  as  a  merchandise  is  anything 
but  recent :  it  has  a  long  beard. 
Before  the  light  of  the  Gospel  shone 
on  the  moral  side  of  labour,  it  was 
considered  only  as  a  necessary 
phenomenon.  Thus  viewed,  labour 
is  a  disgrace,  as  the  galley  chains 
are  a  disgrace.  Labour  was  re¬ 
garded  as  a  chain  by  the  pagans, 
with  whom  labourers  were  slaves. 
The  horrible  fact  of  slavery  was  a 
consequence  of  pagan  ideas  on 
labour. 

The  pagan  theory  of  labour  being 
renewed  by  our  Antichristians,  the 
same  and  even  worse  consequences 
follow.  Labour  as  a  merchandise 
has  given  birth  to  competition,  to 
the  bourse,  to  the  market-place ;  it 
has  confounded  contract  with 
justice ;  it  has  put  the  condition 
of  labourers  below  that  of  slaves. 
The  ancients  bought  the  labourer 
and  his  labour  ;  they  took  charge  of 
both.  Our  moderns  buy  only  the 
labour.  They  separate  it  from  the 
workman,  who  alone  must  think  of 
himself,  his  misery,  his  present, 
and  his  future. 

Note  8,  p.  133. — There  is  an 
objection  made  against  machinery, 
tending  to  show  that  it  is  socially 
injurious.  It  is  said  that  it  takes 
the  work  from  workmen,  and  is  the 
mother  of  idlers. 

We  admit  that  the  introduction 
of  new  machinery  may  cause  a 
special  inconvenience  to  some  per¬ 
sons  who  have  therefore  need  of 
special  help.  But  that  the  incon¬ 
venience  will  have  vast  proportions 
or  last  a  long  time — no  !  Machinery 
creates  new  occupations,  either  for 
making  or  for  managing  itself,  or 
because,  by  giving  its  products  at 
a  lower  price,  it  puts  consumers 
into  a  better  economical  position. 
This  enables  them  to  satisfy  new 
wants,  and  to  originate  new  manu¬ 
factures,  requiring  the  employment 
of  workers. 

Withal  we  do  not  venture  to  say 
that  the  objection  thus  loses  all  its 
force.  We  rather  say  that  there  is 
need  of  special  vigilance  on  the  part 


of  the  Government,  and  of  various 
institutions,  that  work-people  will 
be  protected,  so  that  machinery  may 
be  not  only  economically  but 
socially  useful. 

Note,  9,  p.  139. — Those  towns 
which  have  endeavoured,  by  the 
establishment  of  a  Labour  Office, 
to  supply  for  the  deficiencies  of  the 
law,  are  worthy  of  all  praise. 

Note  10,  p.  140. — On  the  very 
important  case  of  accidents  in 
labour,  Italy  has  nothing  but  the 
poor  little  law  of  1898,  which 
imposes  an  obligation  on  employers 
to  insure  their  labourers  with  the 
“  National  Chest,”  or  with  other 
institutions,  or  by  means  of 
associations  among  industrialists 
themselves. 

Note  11,  p.  140. — The  idea  of  the 
need  of  legislation  on  labour 
having  entered  the  modern  con¬ 
science,  various  projects  have 
appeared.  We  do  not  consider  it 
our  duty  to  make  an  exposition  of 
all.  We  shall  merely  give  the  chief 
points  that  are  proposed  by  Catholic 
Sociology: — (i.)The  maximum  day’s 
work,  ten  hours  for  trades  and  the 
like,  nine  hours  in  mines  ;  (ii.)  festal 
rest ;  (iii. )  absolute  prohibition  of 
night  work  to  women  and  children, 
and  limitation  of  it  to  men  ;  (iv. )  pro¬ 
hibition  of  work  to  children  under 
fourteen  years ;  (v.)  absolute  pro¬ 
hibition  of  unhealthy  or  dangerous 
work  to  women  ;  (vi.)  prohibition  of 
work  to  women  on  Saturday  after¬ 
noon  :  and  this  that  they  may  find  on 
Sunday  a  true  rest,  a  peaceful  quiet, 
which  alone  is  capable  of  restoring 
their  strength  ;  (vii. )  prohibition  of 
work  to  women  for  at  least  six  weeks 
before  they  become  mothers  and 
for  four  weeks  after;  (viii.)  insurance 
arrangements  for  workmen  and 
their  families,  but  practical  and  safe 
arrangements,  not  easily  to  be 
violated  by  interested  persons ; 
(ix.)  the  appointment  of  a  Minister 
of  Labour,  and  of  some  minor 
bodies,  who  will  facilitate  for  him 
the  accomplishment  of  his  duties 
in  favour  of  the  working  classes. 

Note  12,  p.  141. — Among  the 
ancient  pagans  there  could  not 


176  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


exist  any  protection  for  labour 
except  that  which  was  dictated 
by  individual  or  social  convenience. 
Labour  was  secured  by  means  of 
slavery ;  labour  was  secured,  but 
not  the  labourer.  He  was  fettered. 

Christianity  came,  and  kindled 
on  earth  the  fire  of  charity  and 
justice.  Christianity,  a  religion  pre¬ 
eminently  social,  had  no  need  of 
means  to  guard  labour  ;  itself  alone 
was  the  strongest  guardian.  It 
threw  the  light  of  true  ideas  on 
labour.  For  human  toil  in  this 
life,  it  announced  a  reward  in  the 
future  life.  It  said  that  masters  and 
labourers  are  equal  before  God ; 
and  on  behalf  of  the  poor  working 
classes  it  raised  loud  the  voice  of 
justice  and  charity. 

If  these  instructions  and  precepts 
were  reduced  to  practice,  who  does 
not  see  that  labour  would  be  pro¬ 
tected,  as  property  is  protected  ? 
The  rights  of  all  would  be  protected. 
But  alas  !  by  reason  of  human 
malice  and  frailty,  the  spirit  of  the 
Gospel  does  not  circulate  through 
all  the  windings  of  the  social  body, 
so  as  to  produce  its  effects.  And 
how  did  the  Church  endeavour  to 
apply  a  remedy  to  these  evils  ?  In 
the  Middle  Ages,  it  instituted 
corporations  or  guilds  for  the 
different  arts  and  trades.  A  long 
paean  might  be  sung  in  praise  of 
the  social  benefits  of  these  corpora¬ 
tions  which  the  Church,  in  her 
maternal  solicitude,  established  for 
the  welfare  of  poor  people. 

What  were  they  ?  The  very  name 
“  corporation  ”  tells  that  they  were 
associations.  They  were  associa¬ 
tions  of  all  the  workers  engaged  in 
the  same  trade  or  art.  And,  you 
may  be  assured,  they  were  not  sham 
associations.  The  workman  depen¬ 
ded  for  everything  on  his  guild. 
From  it  he  received  occupation,  by 
it  his  wages  were  fixed,  in  it  he  was 
helped,  and  to  it  he  had  recourse  for 
the  defence  of  his  rights.  It  was 
enough  to  inform  the  guild  of  an 
injury  done  him,  that  it  should 
assume  his  defence  as  its  own.  And 
religion,  the  sure  guarantee  for 
honesty  and  justice,  animated  these 
guilds.  Public  law  made  account  of 
them,  and  respected  their  decisions. 

Delabonna  says  : — These  associa¬ 
tions  formed  so  many  families. 


societies,  fraternities,  distinguished 
by  their  banners  and  by  their  half- 
ecclesiastical,  half-secular  dress,  with 
particular  rules,  their  own  tribunals, 
paid  lawyers,  syndics,  agents, 
keepers,  sweepers,  porters,  &c. 
Thus  were  distinguished  at  Florence, 
says  Varchi,  the  societies  of  judges, 
notaries,  physicians,  merchants,  &c. 
Every  association  or  confraternity 
had  its  own  head,  who  at  Venice 
was  called  “  Gastaldo,”  at  Milan 
“  Abbot,”  and  at  Florence  “  Prior,” 
and  each  one  of  them  had  its 
own  holy  Patron  painted  on  its 
banner. 

It  was  these  associations  that 
made  Florence  for  two  centuries  the 
ideal  of  a  democratic  people,  who 
are  regarded  even  at  the  present 
day  with  envious  admiration. 

And  how  does  the  Church  now 
provide  for  the  guardianship  of 
labour  ?  By  endeavouring  to  re¬ 
establish  those  old  guilds,  which  the 
revolutionary  storm  of  the  last 
century  broke  up  and  scattered  over 
the  world.  The  injunctions  of 
Leo  XIII.  are  so  well  known  that 
to  record  them  here  would  be  a 
waste  of  time.  The  anxious  cares 
and  noble  efforts  of  many  excellent 
Catholics,  who  have  founded  such 
guilds  or  business  unions,  are  known, 
as  are  also  known  the  deplorable 
indolence  and  indifference  of  some 
short-sighted  ones. 

Note  13,  p.  144. — But  capital,  a 
strong  force  in  the  hands  of  man, 
easily  offers  occasion  for  great 
abuses,  which  fall  under  the  name 
of  capitalism. 

From  the  analysis  made  of  capital 
it  follows  that  it  ought  to  be  an 
instrument  of  production  in  the 
service  of  labour,  and  therefore  of 
man,  and  of  all  human  society.  It 
is  by  its  nature  a  force,  but  a  force 
intended  to  serve.  If  he  who  owns 
this  force  makes  use  of  if  to  enslave 
labour,  to  domineer  over  society, 
to  destroy  everything  according  to 
the  rule  of  his  own  wishes,  what  is 
such  conduct  but  flagrant  capitalism? 

At  the  present  day,  capitalism 
reigns  supreme.  Amid  so  many 
venal  souls,  and  in  the  weakness  to 
which  labour  is  reduced  by  the 
isolation  of  the  working  classes,  it 
is  natural  that  capitalism  should 


NOTES  TO  THE  SECOND  PART 


177 


have  free  play  for  every  act  of 
deceit,  of  arbitrary  and  arrogant 
dealing.  It  is  a  deity,  ruling  the 
world,  and  calling  that  its  right 
which  is  only  brute  force. 

The  injury  that  capitalism  does 
to  society  is  not  so  easily  described. 
It  is  like  a  huge  monster,  more 
hungry  after  a  meal  than  before. 
By  means  of  labour,  it  becomes  the 
scope  of  human  life.  To  it  all  aspire, 
as  to  a  position  that  is  the  citadel 
of  happiness.  Hence  contention, 
demoralisation,  &c. 

Note  14,  p.  158. — Treating  of 
wages,  an  expression,  “  natural 
justice,”  fell  from  our  pen  for  the 
first  time  in  this  work.  It  was 
suggested  to  us  by  the  Pontiff,  who, 
in  Rerum  novarum,  where  he  speaks 
of  wages,  says  :  “  Let  it  be  granted 

that  a  workman  and  an  employer 
make  a  bargain  by  mutual  consent, 
and  especially  with  regard  to  the 
amount  of  wages :  there  always 
enters  an  element  of  natural 
justice.”  What  the  Pontiff  means 
by  natural  justice  is  explained  in  the 
words  following,  which  tell  us  that 
natural  justice  is  “  anterior  and 
superior  to  the  will  of  the  contracting 
parties,  and  it  is  that  the  remunera¬ 
tion  should  not  be  less  than  is 
required  for  the  support  of  the 
workman  in  frugal  and  decent  com¬ 
fort.  If  through  necessity,  or 
through  fear  of  a  worse  evil,  the 
workman  agrees  to  harder  con¬ 
ditions,  which,  being  imposed  by 
the  employer  or  contractor,  must 
willingly  or  unwillingly  be  accepted, 
this  is  to  suffer  violence,  against 
which  justice  protests.”  It  is  very 
evident  that  by  natural  the  Pope 
means  commutative  justice.  (See 
Bucceroni,  Cas.  Consc.,  p.  245.) 

For  the  rest,  there  is  no  want  of 
reasons  to  show  how  properly 
commutative  justice,  which  regu¬ 
lates  the  relations  between  master 
and  workman  in  regard  to  wages, 
may  be  called  natural.  It  is  natural 
justice  because  it  is  not  the  law  or 
the  will  of  man,  but  nature  itself, 
anterior  and  superior  to  every  human 
contract,  that  binds  to  a  minimum. 

The  abandonment  in  which  laws 
and  social  conditions  have  left  work¬ 
people  at  the  present  day,  has 
exasperated  their  minds.  The  priva¬ 


tions  to  which  they  are  subject,  the 
want  of  those  very  goods  which  are 
in  great  part  the  result  of  their 
labour,  have  raised  within  them  a 
feeling  that  they  have  a  right  to 
reaction.  The  social  atmosphere  is, 
in  the  natural  course  of  things,  so 
formed  that  this  plant  of  right  grows 
marvellously  big,  often  luxuriating 
at  the  cost  of  duty.  And  the  work¬ 
people  think  of  throwing  on  the 
capitalist  the  needs  with  which  they 
find  themselves  oppressed.  They 
say  to  him  : — “  Either  give  us  what 
we  demand,  or  not  one  of  us  will 
work  any  more.  Your  manufactory 
will  remain  empty,  and  your  capital, 
both  fixed  and  circulating,  will  bear 
no  fruit.” 

Behold  the  strike,  which,  as  it  is 
defended  by  the  lips  of  liberalists  or 
socialists,  has  such  an  absolute 
character  of  quarrel  that  it  is 
altogether  unworthy  of  men  !  The 
capitalist  and  the  workman  appear 
like  two  giants,  each  armed  to  the 
teeth,  and  thirsting  to  destroy  his 
adversary. 

Is  the  strike  therefore  to  be 
absolutely  condemned  ?  Before  all 
things  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  strike  is  accompanied  with  great 
inconveniences.  It  is  easy  to  under¬ 
stand  how  the  strike  is  a  loss  to  the 
employer,  who  sees  his  capital  use¬ 
less,  and  cannot  meet  his  engage¬ 
ments  ;  to  the  workman,  who  spends 
his  days  in  idleness  ;  and  to  society 
at  large,  which  finds  the  sources  of 
its  wellbeing  dried  up.  These  are 
direct  losses  ;  and  they  are  accom¬ 
panied  with  so  many  other  evils 
that  it  would  not  be  easy  to  count 
them. 

Even  this  point  did  not  escape 
the  attention  of  the  Pope,  who 
says  : — “  When  workmen  have  re¬ 
course  to  a  strike,  it  is  often  because 
the  work  is  too  long  or  too  heavy, 
or  because  they  consider  the  wages 
too  low.  .  .  .  Such  strikes  are 

injurious  not  only  to  the  employers 
and  to  the  workmen  themselves,  but 
to  trade  and  to  the  general  interests 
of  all ;  and,  by  the  violence  and 
excitement  to  which  they  give  rise, 
often  endanger  the  public  peace.” 
Hence  Leo  XIII.  shows  that  it  is 
a  duty  of  the  State  to  keep  an  eye 
on  these  matters,  which  are  serious, 
and  to  prevent  them.  To  prevent 

M 


178  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


them,  however,  not  absolutely,  or 
as  if  they  were  absolutely  unjust  in 
themselves,  but  by  rendering  re¬ 
course  to  them  unnecessary.  The 
most  efficacious  and  salutary  remedy 
is  to  be  beforehand  with  the 
authority  of  the  laws  and  to 
prevent  the  strike,  removing  in 
good  time  the  causes  from  which 
it  is  foreseen  that  a  conflict 
may  arise  between  employers  and 
workpeople.”  ( Rerum  novarum.) 

Is  a  strike  just  ?  Who  can  deny 
it  ?  The  very  theory  of  economic 
liberty  has  no  right  to  proclaim  it 
unjust.  In  competition  everyone 
thinks  of  putting  himself  in  a 

Eosition  to  make  his  demands  felt. 

iet  us,  however,  say :  We  would 
wish  society  to  be  so  constituted 
that  a  strike  would  be  illegal,  and 
therefore  unjust ;  but  under  the 
regime  of  economic  liberty  this  is 
an  extreme  measure,  which  should 
be  tried  only  after  other  means  have 
been  exhausted.  The  remarks  of 
Cardinal  Manning  are  well  known. 
He  tells  us  that  a  strike  is  a  kind  of 
war ;  if  it  takes  place  for  a  just 
cause,  it  is  a  right,  and  it  is  inevit¬ 
able  ;  it  is  the  only  means  of  defence 
in  the  hands  of  the  workingman. 

Note  15,  p.  159. — We  believe  that 
landowners  as  well  as  peasants  have 
a  special  importance  in  social  life, 
and  we  would  wish  account  to  be 
made  of  them,  so  that  laws  and 
private  institutions  may  have  regard 
for  them,  and  endeavour  to  improve 
their  condition. 

Property  in  land  has  some 
characteristics  that  evidently  dis¬ 
tinguish  it  from  all  other  kinds  of 
property.  It  is  a  true  property, 
which  makes  a  real  cordial  nearness 
between  the  owner  and  the  thing 
owned.  The  members  of  a  family 
that  own  a  vineyard,  a  farm,  and  a 
country  house,  feel  their  hearts 
filled  with  a  warm  affection  for  then- 
property,  which  they  regard  as  the 
basis  of  their  life.  This  contributes 
to  their  stability.  It  helps  to  make 
them  love  the  country  in  which 
they  were  born  and  bred — that 
country  which  is  like  a  tender 
mother  to  them.  The  owner  of  a 
piece  of  land  lets  his  sweat  fall  more 
abundantly  on  it,  and  more  willingly 
sinks  his  capital  in  it,  because  he 


is  not  disturbed  by  any  fear  that 
another  will  right  or  wrong  enjoy 
its  fruits.  But  who,  except  a  man 
perfectly  secure  about  the  future 
possession  of  his  farm,  will  give 
himself  to  careful  assiduous  cultiva¬ 
tion,  which,  if  it  is  largely  remunera¬ 
tive,  is  also  expensive  ? 

Now  this  certainly  concerns  not 
only  those  engaged  in  rural  labour, 
but  society  in  general,  which  from 
no  other  source  than  from  the  pro¬ 
duce  of  the  earth  can  derive  the  first 
elements  of  subsistence.  But  land 
cannot  give  these  excellent  advan¬ 
tages  if  it  is  not  sufficiently  and 
properly  tilled.  It  is  like  a  machine, 
near  which  nature  has  placed  the 
machinist — that  is,  the  countryman. 
The  countryman  has  indeed  often 
to  undergo  great  fatigue  ;  but  nature 
has  made  him  compensation  with 
special  advantages,  which  he  alone 
enjoys  who  works  on  the  mountain 
side,  in  the  vineyard,  on  the  farm, 
in  the  pure  fresh  air,  under  the  azure 
dome  of  heaven. 

Nor  is  it  only  the  life  of  the  body 
that  is  benefited,  but  also  that  of 
the  soul.  The  lofty  and  spacious 
sky,  the  gilt  and  tinted  clouds,  the 
boundless  horizon,  the  green  fields, 
help  wonderfully  to  shake  off  all 
moral  torpor,  to  detach  the  heart 
from  earthly  things,  and  to  wrap 
it  up  in  a  little  ecstasy  of  spirituality. 
Out  there  in  the  open  country  the 
voice  of  God  is  heard,  as  it  was 
heard  in  Eden. 

Hence,  in  the  country  the  people 
are  more  healthy,  more  robust,  more 
moral,  more  religious.  This  is  a 
fact,  and  you  have  seen  the  reasons 
for  it.  It  follows: — (i.)  That  it  is 
well  for  a  nation  that  there  should 
be  many  toilers  on  the  land.  There 
will  then  be  a  greater  produce  of 
what  is  indispensable  for  the  life 
of  all.  The  country  families  will 
be  so  many  nurseries  of  strong, 
vigorous  lives.  There  will  be  blood 
to  circulate  by  matrimonial  alliances 
through  cities  and  towns ;  it  will 
keep  good,  and  it  will  renew  the  life 
of  the  whole  nation,  (ii. )  That  the 
decrease  in  the  number  of  hands 
given  to  agriculture,  as  shown  by 
late  statistics  and  confirmed  by 
daily  experience,  is  a  real  public 
misfortune. 

The  regime  of  free  competition 


NOTES  TO  THE  SECOND  PART 


179 


has  therefore  brought  many  evils 
on  owners  and  labourers.  As  for  the 
former,  it  is  enough  to  consider  the 
condition  in  which  they  find  them¬ 
selves  when  they  have  to  sell  their 
produce.  Every  other  seller  puts 
a  price  upon  his  wares,  and  regulates 
it  according  to  the  cost  of  produc¬ 
tion,  the  expenses  of  storage,  and 
his  individual  or  domestic  wants. 
Not  so  with  the  cultivator  of  land. 
He  must  expect  that  the  market 
will  fix  the  price.  He  cannot  say  : 
“  These  grapes  cost  me  twelve 
shillings  a  quintal ;  I  ought  to  gain 
more  than  five  shillings  a  quintal  on 
them,  that  I  may  be  able  to  live.” 
No,  if  the  market  so  chooses,  it  will 
give  him  only  eight  or  ten  shillings 
a  quintal. 

Not  enough  yet.  The  producer 
produces  for  one  who,  not  having 
produce  of  the  same  kind,  can  give 
him  other  merchandise  in  exchange. 
This  means  an  approaching  of  the 
producer  to  the  consumer,  which  is 
attended  with  mutual  advantage. 
Free  competition  has  placed  between 
these  two  a  middleman,  who 
speculates  on  the  contract  of  barter. 
These  middlemen  are  intermediate 
merchants,  who  find  easy  admission 
for  their  promises  to  spare  producers 
the  trouble  of  seeking  buyers,  and 
consumers  that  of  seeking  sellers. 
In  fact  they  put  a  tax  on  both. 
They  tax  the  former  by  lowering  the 
price  at  which  they  buy  in  a  par¬ 
ticular  region  ;  they  tax  the  latter 
by  raising  the  price,  so  as  to  make 
them  pay  dearly  for  the  service 
rendered  by  bringing  the  desired 
merchandise  within  their  reach. 
This  intermediate  commerce,  which, 
without  due  restraint  under  the 
regime  of  liberty,  makes  new  re¬ 
cruits  every  day,  is  one  of  the 
causes  that  have  very  much  injured 
modern  agriculture. 

It  is  easy  to  understand  how  this 
state  of  affairs  leads  to  a  two-fold 
prostration,  that  of  the  farmer  and 
that  of  the  labourer.  The  farmer, 
his  means  exhausted,  has  not  where¬ 
with  to  incur  the  expenses  of  a  wise 
improved  cultivation.  Laden  with 
debts,  he  drags  out  a  miserable  life, 
and  makes  the  poor  labourer  drag 
out  a  still  more  miserable  one,  on 
whose  shoulders  alone  he  can  lay 
a  portion  of  his  distress. 


Thus  tillage  declines,  and  the 
source  of  national  wealth  is  dried 
up.  The  farmer  who  finds  himself 
thus  straitened,  endeavours  to  free 
himself  from  his  difficulties,  and 
throws,  as  much  as  he  can,  those 
evils  on  the  labourer.  Hence  the 
sad  state  of  many  country  people 
at  the  present  day. 

To  come  to  the  aid  of  the  farmer 
and  the  labourer  is  therefore  an 
urgent  necessity,  and  it  is  at 
the  same  time  social  justice  and 
charity.  The  ordering  of  agricul¬ 
tural  industry  will  be  just  and 
profitable  when  this  noble  object  is 
kept  in  view. 

Note  16,  page  161. — Professor 
Toniolo,  in  an  eloquent  speech  at 
the  Congress  of  Padua,  referred  to 
these  matters  thus  : — “  Mezzadria, 
in  order  to  bestow  its  benefits, 
knows  how  to  conform  to  social 
conditions,  and  even  to  agricultural 
science,  things  of  themselves  vari¬ 
able,  and  in  this  way  it  corresponds 
better  to  the  idea  of  justice.  If,  for 
example,  in  some  regions  of  Venetia, 
where  the  land  is  barren  or  im¬ 
poverished,  a  division  of  the  crop 
in  kind  were  made  by  halves,  the 
peasant  would  not  have  so  much  as 
the  necessaries  of  life.  And  else¬ 
where,  according  to  the  prevailing 
mode  of  culture,  in  which  sometimes 
capital,  sometimes  labour,  has  a 
greater  importance,  it  is  natural 
that  a  larger  share  of  the  crop 
should  fall  to  one  party  rather  than 
the  other ;  so  that  our  approval, 
favourable  to  this  practice,  goes 
directly  to  unequal  partnership  in 
general  rather  than  exclusively  to 
mezzadria.  But  in  such  cases  the 
flexibility  of  the  mode  of  contract 
is  commendable  simply  because  it 
accommodates  itself  to  equity. 

“  At  the  same  time  there  are  in 
this  flexibility  of  the  system  some 
essential  conditions  that  cannot  be 
renounced  without  unnaturalising 
mezzadria  itself.  Among  these,  for 
example,  is  the  condition  that  makes 
mezzadria  a  company  or  society,  by 
which  both  the  partners  share  in 
the  care  of  the  agricultural  business 
and  both  divide  the  risks  of  a  return. 
When  instead  the  owner  of  the  land, 
who  ought  to  be  an  enlightened 
director  of  the  work,  neglects  it 


180  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY 


altogether,  leaving  its  cultivation 
to  the  experiments  of  a  peasant  as 
in  Venetia,  or  when  between  himself 
and  the  peasant,  who,  being  part¬ 
ners,  ought  to  be  united  by  the 
bonds  of  mutual  confidence,  a 
speculator  steps  in,  such  as  the 
duty-collector  of  Sicily,  who  on  the 
one  hand  legalises  the  absence  and 
indifference  of  the  master  and  on 
the  other  cheats  and  afflicts  the 
workman,  there  is  no  longer  question 
of  accessory  methods  or  reasonable 
flexibility,  but  of  violation  of  the 
substantial  justice  to  be  expected 
from  the  contract.  Thus  there  may 
be  a  mezzadria  merely  in  name,  but 
in  reality  a  flagrant  perversion  of  it. 

“  As  much  may  be  said  with 
regard  to  the  contributing  of  capital. 
The  essence  of  partnership  cultiva¬ 
tion  implies  that  not  only  the 
returns  should  be  shared,  but  also 
the  sacrifices  necessary  for  the  agri¬ 
cultural  work.  And  therefore  if 
one  party  furnishes  labour  and 
personal  care  in  cultivation,  and 
the  other,  the  owner,  furnishes  land, 
all  the  expenses  for  the  preparation 
of  the  ground,  or  for  the  permanent 
improvement  of  it,  ought,  by  the 
nature  of  this  contract,  to  be  borne 
by  the  owner."  This  fundamental 
contract  being  secured,  the  supply¬ 
ing  of  capital  for  use  may  vary  in 
proportion  according  to  circum¬ 
stances,  through  that  elasticity 
which  we  have  said  to  be  just  and 
beneficial.  In  which  case,  however, 
it  not  unfrequently  happens  that 
on  lands  whose  crops  (vines,  olives, 
&c.)  give  an  absolute  predominance 
to  a  loving  intelligent  intensity  of 
labour  over  a  small  capital  for  use, 
all  this  capital  remains  for  the 
benefit  of  the  proprietor,  without 
his  subtracting  anything  from  the 
half  of  the  produce  justly  due  to  the 
peasant.  On  this  hypothesis,  which 
has  been  happily  met  in  Tuscany, 
as  shown  by  Canon  Moretti  in  his 
admirable  discourse,  the  sacrifice  or 
merit  of  the  labourer  equals  that  of 
the  owner  or  capitalist,  without  any 
offence  of  justice. 

“  But  when,  in  other  parts  of 
Italy,  we  see  nominally  and  even 


practically  maintained  the  division 
of  the  natural  produce  into  half 
and  half,  yet  a  claim  made  on  the 
peasant  for  the  rent  of  a  cottage 
built  on  the  farm,  for  payment  in 
money  for  the  forage  of  his  cattle 
in  the  fields,  for  interest  often 
usurious  in  regard  to  the  cattle, 
which  the  peasant  would  have  been 
able  to  expend  in  cultivation  and 
which  the  proprietor  anticipated, 
and  in  fine  a  succession  of  presents 
to  the  master — in  these  conditions 
the  mask  of  mezzadria  conceals 
little  less  than  real  slavery  with 
miserable  wages. 

“  It  is  for  this  degeneration  of  the 
proper  economical  character  of 
mezzadria  that  we  intend  to  provide, 
recalling  it  to  its  Christian  traditions. 
Let  it  also  be  observed  that  customs, 
such  as  that  so  happily  existing  in 
Tuscany  and  referred  to  by  Canon 
Moretti,  by  which  the  produce  in 
kind  is  divided  into  two  equal  parts, 
although  the  capital,  whether  exist¬ 
ing  in  soil  improvement  or  technical 
skill,  pertains  to  the  proprietor 
alone,  reflect  a  traditional  Christian 
idea  in  its  highest  expression ;  and 
it  is  that  the  merit  and  dignity  of 
the  mezzadro  labourer  are  so  great 
as  to  equal  the  contribution  of  the 
proprietor,  who  gives  both  land  and 
capital.  The  history  of  economy 
never  showed  a  higher  or  more 
practical  esteem  for  labour.” 

Note  17,  p.  163. — The  contract 
of  land  return  offers  analogous 
advantages.  It  consists  in  the  loan 
that  a  creditor  makes  of  a  farm, 
binding  himself  never  to  claim  it 
back  and  reserving  to  himself  an 
annual  pension  from  it.  We  say 
loan  to  indicate  that  in  such  a  con¬ 
tract  the  tribute-payer  acquires  not 
only  a  use  dominion,  but  also  a 
direct  dominion,  over  the  farm, 
which,  for  the  rest,  is  saleable,  the 
annual  pension  being  reserved. 
Manzi  remarks  that  the  present 
conditions  of  credit  have  reduced 
land  return  to  an  historic  value,  and 
nothing  more.  But  even  of  it  we 
ought  to  say,  Let  the  old  customs  be 
revived  ! 


M.  H.  Gill  &  Son,  Limited,  Dublin  and  Waterford. 


